JOE LIEBERMAN Tells it like it is.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If only there were more democrats like him.



Our Troops Must Stay
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.

BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.





Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.
In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.





Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.





I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."
Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.

Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.



How is it we here almost nothing of this speech or what its about from the mainstream media? Yet Murthas speech is front page news?

[Xiahou]

Good find Gawain, I had been meaning to read that. :bow:


How is it we here almost nothing of this speech or what its about from the mainstream media? Yet Murthas speech is front page news?Because Lieberman isnt towing the Vietnam line? ~;)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hmmm...

Is Lieberman asserting that there are only 10k left after the slew we've killeed or detained?

If so, that is excellent news, since the accepted ratio for supression of guerilla fighters is 10-1 and we do have that many boots.

If he is asserting that there were never more than 10k and that the number remains static, then I would like to know who has been hamstringing our grunts and preventing them from cleaning up and finishing the job.

If this is merely a rhetorical point illustrating that the opposition forces in Iraq are a tiny minority compared to the larger population, then I would agree -- but would prefer that to have been clearly noted.

Sad, but probably inevitable point about the graft/wastage on the econ side. Since we have to do this kind of reconstruction stuff all too often, we really should be developing ways to do it better.

[screwtype]

So, the Senator for Tel Aviv is in favour of American intervention in the ME. What a suprise!

No doubt he and his Israeli pals will be cheering from the sidelines yet again when the US invades Iran. After all, why fight your own battles when you can get some other schlub to do all the fighting and dying for you?

[Xiahou]

So, the Senator for Tel Aviv is in favour of American intervention in the ME. What a suprise!

No doubt he and his Israeli pals will be cheering from the sidelines yet again when the US invades Iran. After all, why fight your own battles when you can get some other schlub to do all the fighting and dying for you?
Boy those sneaky Jews, huh? ~:rolleyes:

[yesdachi]

If only there were more democrats like him.
Obviously he is being voodoo controlled by the right.~;)

Nice find, thanks for sharing Gawain.~:)

[Aurelian]

Yes, yes... Iraqis have more cell phones... the Kurds are happy... there is less terrorism in the Shia South... our soldiers are wonderful people... yada yada.

For some reason, Lieberman reminds me of the impersonation Dana Carvey used to do of Bush I's talking points during the 1988 election: "Stay the course... a thousand points of light... stay the course."

The problem in Iraq right now is that the Shia and Sunni are using death squads against each other. When we invaded Iraq we stuck our noses into an unresolved religious/ethnic power-struggle/vendetta. It was never a situation that was going to lend itself easily to a democratic transition. To the Sunnis, our democratization attempt meant that they went from running the country to being in a permanent minority status vis-a-vis the Shia and Kurds Saddam had spent decades subjugating. De-Baathification, joblessness, and the disbanding of the army helped further push the Sunni towards insurgency.

Now, it appears that the "Salvadoran Solution" of US sponsored anti-Sunni death squads that was discussed in Newsweek last January may be covertly coming to fruition. Here's a bit from that Newsweek article:


Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.). . .

Shahwani also said that the U.S. occupation has failed to crack the problem of broad support for the insurgency. The insurgents, he said, "are mostly in the Sunni areas where the population there, almost 200,000, is sympathetic to them." He said most Iraqi people do not actively support the insurgents or provide them with material or logistical help, but at the same time they won’t turn them in. One military source involved in the Pentagon debate agrees that this is the crux of the problem, and he suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation." LINK (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/)

Okay, so last January, the Pentagon was discussing using a "Salvadoran" death squad policy as a way to make the Sunni population 'pay the price' for supporting the insurgency. Presumably, John Negroponte, who oversaw the earlier policy wasn't sent to Iraq for his health, because we now have this:


As the American military pushes the largely Shiite Iraqi security services into a larger role in combating the insurgency, evidence has begun to mount suggesting that the Iraqi forces are carrying out executions in predominantly Sunni neighborhoods.

Hundreds of accounts of killings and abductions have emerged in recent weeks, most of them brought forward by Sunni civilians, who claim that their relatives have been taken away by Iraqi men in uniform without warrant or explanation.

Some Sunni men have been found dead in ditches and fields, with bullet holes in their temples, acid burns on their skin, and holes in their bodies apparently made by electric drills. Many have simply vanished.

Some of the young men have turned up alive in prison. In a secret bunker discovered earlier this month in an Interior Ministry building in Baghdad, American and Iraqi officials acknowledged that some of the mostly Sunni inmates appeared to have been tortured.

Bayan Jabr, the interior minister, and other government officials denied any government involvement, saying the killings were carried out by men driving stolen police cars and wearing police and army uniforms purchased at local markets. “Impossible! Impossible!” Mr. Jabr said. “That is totally wrong; it’s only rumors; it is nonsense.”

Many of the claims of killings and abductions have been substantiated by at least one human rights organization working here - which asked not to be identified because of safety concerns - and documented by Sunni leaders working in their communities.

American officials, who are overseeing the training of the Iraqi Army and the police, acknowledge that police officers and Iraqi soldiers, and the militias with which they are associated, may indeed be carrying out killings and abductions in Sunni communities, without direct (emphasis mine) American knowledge.

But they also say it is difficult, in an already murky guerrilla war, to determine exactly who is responsible. The American officials insisted on anonymity because they were working closely with the Iraqi government and did not want to criticize it publicly.

The widespread conviction among Sunnis that the Shiite-led government is bent on waging a campaign of terror against them is sending waves of fear through the community, just as Iraqi and American officials are trying to coax the Sunnis to take part in nationwide elections on Dec. 15.

Sunnis believe that the security forces are carrying out sectarian reprisals, in part to combat the insurgency, but also in revenge for years of repression at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s government.

Ayad Allawi, a prominent Iraqi politician who is close to the Sunni community, charged in an interview published Sunday in The London Observer that the Iraqi government - and the Ministry of Interior in particular - was condoning torture and running death squads. LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/international/middleeast/29security.html?ei=5094&en=f18810368c98ae2c&hp=&ex=1133326800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)


Death squads being put into use by the Iraqi government does not seem like an improvement to the situation, and it does not seem like an indication that any kind of democracy has been created in Iraq.

[Tribesman]

Boy those sneaky Jews, huh?
Would you like to read the leading Jewish Isreali military analists take on Iraq for balance Xiahou ?
Very different from the Senators take on it , somehow I don't think you will like what he writes , but the US military do , they have his works on their "required reading" list .

[screwtype]

Boy those sneaky Jews, huh? ~:rolleyes:

Oh, I can see you're too smart to be taken in by any suggestion that a committed Zionist like Lieberman might actually be swayed by his ties to his beloved Israel.

Have you ever actually bothered to find out who the neocons behind the invasion of Iraq are?

[doc_bean]

Have you ever actually bothered to find out who the neocons behind the invasion of Iraq are?

People voted in by a mostly christian electorate ?

[Prodigal]

People voted in by a mostly christian electorate ?
Who believe the world's a few thousand years old! (I'm posting this point erratically in the hope someones going to admit that they believe it).

Oh, & yes of course it was a Jewish plot, had nothing to do with oil *nuh-uh*, or doing what your daddy tells you. Now lets see if anyone can guess who the only ex-president is who excercises his rights to read CIA updates.

Personally I think that its well worth considering the words of Eisenhower in his last speech as president...And this was in '61

"American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Edited as I missed a bit out...

[screwtype]

Oh, & yes of course it was a Jewish plot, had nothing to do with oil *nuh-uh*, or doing what your daddy tells you.

What is wrong with you people? Where did I say there was a "Jewish plot"?

I also believe that oil is the primary driver behind the war in Iraq. Cheney did not call Iraq "the great prize" some years ago for nothing.

But that doesn't mean oil is the only consideration. Most of the neocons are committed Zionists, many of them are indeed former Likudniks who worked for Benjamin Netanyahu. They are folks who are very interested in promoting policies that benefit Israel.

As it happens, I regret bringing the neocons up because I'm not interested in starting a discussion about them. I simply wanted to point out that a committed Zionist like Lieberman has very obvious ulterior motives for seeing the US involved in the ME. He has taken a stand well to the right of most of his party on Iraq and it isn't hard to figure out why.

[Prodigal]

Sorry wasn't attacking you in particular, I only scanned the other posts & it all sort of seemed to be leaning toward the Jewish plot for world domination. I very strongly feel ol' Dwight saw the Monster coming, & it just got hungry & decided it was time to be fed.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Who believe the world's a few thousand years old! (I'm posting this point erratically in the hope someones going to admit that they believe it).


Dont hold your breath waiting. That is unless Nav shows up.

[Tribesman]

http://www.forward.com/articles/6936
An interesting read for anyone interested . A change from Lieberman .
Or Bushs recycled old crap that he gave out again today .

[Xiahou]

http://www.forward.com/articles/6936
An interesting read for anyone interested . A change from Lieberman .
Or Bushs recycled old crap that he gave out again today .
Wait, Im confused- is the Iraq war a Zionist conspiracy or not? It is, since Lieberman is for it (clearly putting the needs of Israel above his country and his electorate, right?), yet Van Creveld is against it. I don't know what to think. ~:joker:

As a side note, I hope to never hear any who criticize Lieberman's motives ever cry about someone supposedly questioning their patriotism. :shrug:

[Tribesman]

yet Van Creveld is against it.
And why is Van Crevald against it Xiahou ?
Is it because he thinks it is the biggest political/military ballsup for 2000 years ? Is it because it is screwing the US up ? is it because it is benefitting the terrorists ? is it because it is aiding Iran ?
But you are OK , it isn't like vietnam , its worse , much worse , so throw that one out next time someone makes a comparison to Vietnam ~D ~D ~D

[Xiahou]

yet Van Creveld is against it.
And why is Van Crevald against it Xiahou ?Well, Im not going to make a snap judgement about the guy based on 1 peice, but he seems pretty incoherent on this one at least. He claims we need to pull out ASAP because we're failing and soldiers are dying, ect. Yet, he says that many soldiers will die during his 'inevitable' pullout, and then goes on to say we wouldnt be really withdrawing anyhow, since we'll have to leave an undetermined "moderate" number of troops in Iraq for security. You'll have to explain to me how that makes sense, since he's apparently singing your tune. ~:confused:

Regardless, dont his assertions put down this 'Zionist' interest plot? So now why did Leiberman say what he did if it's not because he's a traitor to America?



But you are OK , it isn't like vietnam , its worse , much worse , so throw that one out next time someone makes a comparison to Vietnam ~D ~D ~DWhatever you're smoking, I think it's time to lay off it for awhile. ~D

[Tribesman]

Regardless, dont his assertions put down this 'Zionist' interest plot?
What plot ? who is on about a Zionist plot ??????
If there was an Israeli plot it certainly isn't being followed as the last thing they would want is a stronger Iran . The only major Israeli involvement in Iraq is that they are backing one Kurdish group to counter the Iranian backed group , though both groups are supposed to be working together with American backing (work that one out~;) )

You'll have to explain to me how that makes sense, since he's apparently singing your tune.

Its quite simple Xiahou , they have no option but to withdraw , but they cannot withdraw .Your government has chosen a battle in Iraq that it cannot win , but cannot afford to lose . So they are well and truly stuck .

So now why did Leiberman say what he did if it's not because he's a traitor to America?
??????????Errrrrr ...what ?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Worst screw-up in 2000 years?

Pass the substances over here, please. ~:rolleyes:

[Xiahou]

Its quite simple Xiahou , they have no option but to withdraw , but they cannot withdraw .Your government has chosen a battle in Iraq that it cannot win , but cannot afford to lose . So they are well and truly stuck .So, we have to finish the job then? I guess everyone agrees afterall. ~:cheers:


So now why did Leiberman say what he did if it's not because he's a traitor to America?
??????????Errrrrr ...what ?
Isnt that what these statements are implying?

So, the Senator for Tel Aviv is in favour of American intervention in the ME. What a suprise!

No doubt he and his Israeli pals will be cheering from the sidelines yet again when the US invades Iran. After all, why fight your own battles when you can get some other schlub to do all the fighting and dying for you?

Oh, I can see you're too smart to be taken in by any suggestion that a committed Zionist like Lieberman might actually be swayed by his ties to his beloved Israel.
I realize you didnt make those statements Tribesman, but my comments weren't directly addressed to you either.

[Tribesman]

Im not going to make a snap judgement about the guy based on 1 peice
Would you like another piece , there are hundreds of articles and interviews out there by him ?
http://www.sonshi.com/vancreveld.html

So, we have to finish the job then? I guess everyone agrees afterall.
Yes , but how ? It cannot be finished can it , it is an endless cycle the only option would have been not to get into the cycle , but its too late now , the only other option is to flatten the place and everyone in it , but that isn't an option is it .

realize you didnt make those statements Tribesman, but my comments weren't directly addressed to you either.
Hey its only me mentioned or quoted in the post Xiahou .
Perhaps you could have used Would you like to read the leading Jewish Isreali military analists take on Iraq for balance Xiahou ?
Very different from the Senators take on it , or An interesting read for anyone interested . A change from Lieberman .
~;)

Is Lieberman asserting that there are only 10k left after the slew we've killeed or detained?

If so, that is excellent news, since the accepted ratio for supression of guerilla fighters is 10-1 and we do have that many boots.

Seamus that 10,000 is just a figure that he has plucked from the air , latest estimates vary between 22-35000 , but they are just various government and intelligence estimates .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tribesman:

Unlike you, I do think the USA can win this conflict in Iraq. The reason we haven't moved forward towards a conclusion with more dispatch is that we have never harnessed our resources properly for the task.

If we assume 30k terrorists/guerillas in opposition, coalition forces would need somewhere between 250k and 300k boots to effectively suppress and gradually marginalize their efforts. The coalition has fewer than 200k troops in Iraq and the Iraqis themselves are not yet fielding the 100k+ needed to make the difference. They'll get there, but anybody who thinks its gonna happen in 90 days or less is tippling too much potcheen.

Right now, we have a 7-1 ratio as opposed to the 10-1. I have read sources that say that 7-1 is sufficient, but I suspect that the lower ratio also means higher casualties and a longer time horizon for success. As you will recall from a few RTW battles, if you go in with a huge advantage, its just faster and easier all around.

Back in Sep '01 we should have gone for a formal DOW against extra-national terrorism and followed it up with a formal DOW against Iraq and truly mobilized the power of the USA -- and yes, I do mean a draft as well. Most of our military wouldn't want a draftee in the platoon next to them -- and I'd agree -- but there are a snot-load of jobs draftees could fill and we'd end up with more boots where we need them.

In the long run, though, I do think we'll prevail -- I just wish we'd used the bigger hammer and finished it up sooner.

[Tribesman]

Unlike you, I do think the USA can win this conflict in Iraq. The reason we haven't moved forward towards a conclusion with more dispatch is that we have never harnessed our resources properly for the task.

"Can" Seamus ? Don't you mean "Could have" .
Can you really see congress or the senate approving the neccesary measures at this stage , not to mention the neccesary monies .
They knew from Afghanistan that the civilian contractors were largely a waste of time and money , why is it only now after nearly all the allocated funds have gone that they are following the provisional reconstuction group schemes that were implemented there ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes "can," and I believe will.

Even without the kind of increase I outlined, I do believe we can prevail as we have the 7-1 ratio for minimal effectiveness. I just get ticked off when it should have been done faster and better -- and probably with fewer dead -- if it wasn't done "on the cheap." As it is, I believe we'll pull it off, but I'd be a lot happier with the US leadership if that believe was "know" -- onlly they didn't put that kind of muscle behind the effort.

[Lemur]

If you'd like to see Joe defending his position on video, here's a handy source:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/30.html#a6119

[Xiahou]

If you'd like to see Joe defending his position on video, here's a handy source:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/30.html#a6119OMG, Imus?? MSNBC puts anyone on the air dont they? ~:joker:

[Lemur]

You were expecting Ann Coulter?

[Tribesman]

Yes "can," and I believe will.

Even without the kind of increase I outlined, I do believe we can prevail as we have the 7-1 ratio for minimal effectiveness.
Minimal effectiveness , without increase . Well thats buggered then ~:eek:
Without increase minimal effectiveness just keeps things the same , since the terrorism/insurgency is increasing and the military presence is decreasing then you have negative effectiveness .
More of the same , staying the course , is just achieving nothing .
A massive increase in the presence is needed , but that will feed the insurgency/flow of foriegn fighters , unless it is so massive that it is able to secure the entire country and allow for the the redevelopment to proceed very quickly to show real and sustained improvements in conditions for all the citizens , not meaningless rubbish like how many mobile phones have been sold , or how they are now making more money overall because oil companies are now exporting oil at an increased price instead of exporting it at below cost within "tight" restrictions .
While they put out often contradictory figures on the numbers and effectivness of domestic forces , they try to gloss over the effective running losses of those forces which is averaging around 20% . Plus they talk of the Iraqi police and military forces yet ignore that the two are run by diametricly opposed groups who are effectively at war with each other to further their own agendas ????
America and its dwindling numbers of allies will not do a massive increase , they are all talking of reductions/withdrawing , new allies are not forthcoming .

So not "can" and "will" , it is "could have but didn't" and "can but won't" .:shrug:

[KafirChobee]

Joe cost the Democrats 3million votes in 2000. He owes his allegance to Israel, and if he were arrested tomorrow as an Israeli spy? I for one would not be surprised.

[Xiahou]

You were expecting Ann Coulter?I certainly wouldnt expect you to give it much weight if I posted a video of Coulter supposedly trashing someone's views. Imus is a total crackpot and a joke and will be dismissed as such by me- it's as silly as people trying to take Jerry Springer seriously anymore.


Joe cost the Democrats 3million votes in 2000. He owes his allegance to Israel, and if he were arrested tomorrow as an Israeli spy? I for one would not be surprised.Now we have the 2nd person to come forward and claim that Lieberman is a Jewish spy and/or traitor. Good show.~:handball:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Joe cost the Democrats 3million votes in 2000.

How do you figure that? I thought his campaigning in Florida is what helped Gore almost take the win by breaking Bush's solid South? Bush's margins in a number of states that year were thin, so 3M from the total would probably have been crucial. Where do you get that number?

Oh, I realize that you did not call him a spy....quite. Can't say as I agree, since if Mossad owned us that thoroughly we'd be shunting more money off to Israel than we do (which is considerable shekelage). If you're underining his staunch support for Israel with a little hyperbole, then I'd have to agree.

[Xiahou]

If you're underining his staunch support for Israel with a little hyperbole, then I'd have to agree.Why? I'd wager the majority of American politicians support Israel- yet we don't question where their loyalties lie. Is it just because of the fact that he's Jewish and supports Israel that "He owes his allegance to Israel"? I find that whole concept borderline offensive.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Why? I'd wager the majority of American politicians support Israel- yet we don't question where their loyalties lie. Is it just because of the fact that he's Jewish and supports Israel that "He owes his allegance to Israel"? I find that whole concept borderline offensive.

I hear you, X. I just meant that if he was playing up the verbage to highlight the strong support Lieberman shows Israel that would be understandable if not fully appropriate. If he meant it as stated than it would be both insulting and wrong.

[KafirChobee]

Now we have the 2nd person to come forward and claim that Lieberman is a Jewish spy and/or traitor. Good show.~:handball:
What I said was, I would not be surprised. Look at the way he has whaffled on his possitions - if at first they did not support Israeli lines, they soon did. That is all i have said. It would not be a surprise - not that Joe is; at present he is nothing more than a Republican lackey. So, good for Joe - maybe some day he'll have a purpose that actually supports American interests as well as Israels. Todate, he HAS NOT!.

[KafirChobee]

How do you figure that? I thought his campaigning in Florida is what helped Gore almost take the win by breaking Bush's solid South? Bush's margins in a number of states that year were thin, so 3M from the total would probably have been crucial. Where do you get that number?

Oh, I realize that you did not call him a spy....quite. Can't say as I agree, since if Mossad owned us that thoroughly we'd be shunting more money off to Israel than we do (which is considerable shekelage). If you're underining his staunch support for Israel with a little hyperbole, then I'd have to agree.

I'm sorry, I must have been out of the room in 2000 then. You do know that 5,000 Jews erroneously voted for Roberts in PalmBeach alone? The ballots (thanks to Catherine Harris) were about as confusing as she (the voter registra for the state - you know the bimbo that now wants to go to congress? Good luck on that, btw. LOL) could. Imagine a person of Jewish persuasion voting for someone that slanders them on a daily basis - not that some may not have voted for Hitler in their youth (but, people tend to learn from their experiences. So it is doubtful any meant to support Roberts on the ballot).

Joe created no votes in Florida - those of Jewish persuasion tend to support Democratic candidates. He did subtract some, however, from the white and black vote that are still subjective about Jews. Not that I agree that a person's religion should be an issue, but for someone running for President to select someone that would be suspect to 20% of the South because of it? Well, that is either dumb, or genious - obviously it wasn't genious.

Joe only "Tells it like it is" if it coincides with Israeli policy. That is Joe L.

[Xiahou]

What I said was, I would not be surprised. Look at the way he has whaffled on his possitions - if at first they did not support Israeli lines, they soon did. That is all i have said. It would not be a surprise - not that Joe is; at present he is nothing more than a Republican lackey. So, good for Joe - maybe some day he'll have a purpose that actually supports American interests as well as Israels. Todate, he HAS NOT!.
No, what you've said is that he owes his allegiance to Isreal- that he uses his position to put the interests of a foreign nation over those of his country. You've all but come out and said you think he's a traitor and have certainly strongly implied it.


Joe only "Tells it like it is" if it coincides with Israeli policy. That is Joe L.

[KafirChobee]

No, what you've said is that he owes his allegiance to Isreal- that he uses his position to put the interests of a foreign nation over those of his country. You've all but come out and said you think he's a traitor and have certainly strongly implied it.

Define: "Is". As pertaining to Joe. Not traitor, just biased to any position opposed to most Americans that is pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. Most Americans are real tired of Israeli's take on things. Though we seem to like the idea of hating Muslims (some of us anyways). Especially since they (Israel) seem to be the ones spying us the most. Or, maybe you haven't noticed? Then again, one must remember who the first modernist terrorists were - just ask Charron.

[edit for simaltry]

[Xiahou]

Define: "Is".More like define "backtracking". "He owes his allegance to Israel" were your words- not mine.

As pertaining to Joe. Not traitor, just biased to any position opposed to most Americans that is pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. Most Americans are real tired of Israeli's take on things. Though we seem to like the idea of hating Muslims (some of us anyways). Especially since they (Israel) seem to be the ones spying us the most. Or, maybe you haven't noticed?Clearly you havent followed any polling data about American support for Israel... not suprising I guess.

Tell ya what though, Im in the mood for a laugh- so go ahead and find me some specific vote rolls where you think Leiberman put Israel's interests ahead of and compare his votes with those of people who you consider "real" Americans- Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, ect. Im sure it wont be hard for you to find some examples, since you already know that he puts Israel first....

[screwtype]

No, what you've said is that he owes his allegiance to Isreal- that he uses his position to put the interests of a foreign nation over those of his country. You've all but come out and said you think he's a traitor and have certainly strongly implied it.

Lieberman is on record as saying that the interests of Israel and the United States are identical. I think that demonstrates only too clearly his total lack of objectivity on the Israeli question.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Lieberman is on record as saying that the interests of Israel and the United States are identical. I think that demonstrates only too clearly his total lack of objectivity on the Israeli question.

This is pretty much the position of most americans.

[Tribesman]

This is pretty much the position of most americans.
What ? the total lack of objectivity on the Israeli question ~D ~D ~D

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm sorry, I must have been out of the room in 2000 then. You do know that 5,000 Jews erroneously voted for Roberts in PalmBeach alone? The ballots (thanks to Catherine Harris) were about as confusing as she (the voter registra for the state - you know the bimbo that now wants to go to congress? Good luck on that, btw. LOL) could. Imagine a person of Jewish persuasion voting for someone that slanders them on a daily basis - not that some may not have voted for Hitler in their youth (but, people tend to learn from their experiences. So it is doubtful any meant to support Roberts on the ballot)..

Actually, Florida did not have a state-wide ballot, but all sorts of different ballots county by county. I don't think Ms. Harris did anything but sign off on a ballot type presented to her by the county in question (probably in the usual rubber-stamp manner of previous holders of her position). If the ballot was flawed (judgement call, but possible from some of the things I read) and that flaw caused more than 1k missed votes, than it certainly could have shifted that election -- it was razor close. Ballot malf-ups are, regrettably, a part of nearly every election and no one has been able to show that they have favored one or the other of the two parties in any consistent way -- it just becomes hugely more noticeable in a race that is that close. I still think the loss was more attributable to Nader sapping nearly 90k votes from what would certainly have been a more liberal-leaning pool and more than enough to generate a handy Gore win. By no concantenation can Dubya have been considered a "majority" winner in 2000.

Mind you, your larger concern on election idiocies is important. I would love to see a consistent federal ballot and basic procedures that were strongly parallel across all states. If it were more like driving laws, the relative consistency would make the process smoother.


Joe created no votes in Florida - those of Jewish persuasion tend to support Democratic candidates. He did subtract some, however, from the white and black vote that are still subjective about Jews. Not that I agree that a person's religion should be an issue, but for someone running for President to select someone that would be suspect to 20% of the South because of it? Well, that is either dumb, or genious - obviously it wasn't genious..

Sadly, there are people who tend to react to Jewish politicians the way folks reacted to Catholic politicians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- idiocy to think that way, but I must agree with you that it happens still.

So, your overall contention is that Senator L. kept some normally democratic voters away from the polls and, combined with balloting errors, that was enough to let Bush squeak out a state he would otherwise have lost -- even with the Nader factor in play?

[screwtype]

This is pretty much the position of most americans.

"Most Americans" are not Congressmen with a responsibility to protect the interests of the United States.

And in any case, I dispute your assertion. In my experience, "most Americans" are a lot cooler toward Israel than the folks who purport to represent them in Congress.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

"Most Americans" are not Congressmen with a responsibility to protect the interests of the United States.


Congressman are supposed to reflect the peoples will.


And in any case, I dispute your assertion. In my experience, "most Americans" are a lot cooler toward Israel than the folks who purport to represent them in Congress.

How old are you and where are you from? I venture I have a little more experience then you on these matters.

[Tribesman]

How old are you and where are you from? I venture I have a little more experience then you on these matters.
~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D
Oh come on Gawain , do tell , from all your experience about Israel ~D ~D ~D What ? the total lack of objectivity on the Israeli question ~D ~D ~D
Since you don't vote Republican and won't vote Democrat then who is representing you in Congress and reflecting your will~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh come on Gawain , do tell , from all your experience about Israel

Maybe you think your a funny man. I find you drol. You spin things totally out of proportion. I am speaking of my experience with how americans feel towards Israel not any experience I have personally with Israel and you damn well know it. Most americans support Israel . All your smileys, like your so smart what ever others post is a joke to you.


Since you don't vote Republican and won't vote Democrat then who is representing you in Congress and reflecting your will

Not to many. And in case you havent noticed Im not terribly fond of our government. Especially Democrats and Republicans.

[Tribesman]

I am speaking of my experience with how americans feel towards Israel not any experience I have personally with Israel and you damn well know it. Most americans support Israel . All your smileys, like your so smart what ever others post is a joke to you.

Yes it is a joke since that is not what you said and it is not what you refered to by quoting the passage ......
Lieberman is on record as saying that the interests of Israel and the United States are identical.
How in the hell could two very different countries thousands of miles apart with very different politics , very different histories , very different populations , very different systems of government and administration , very different national and international issues/problems be in any way identical ?????
And to make a statement that most Americans think this is true is insulting the intelligence of most Americans . There is a very big difference between supporting Israel and saying that Israeli and American interests are identical .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes it is a joke since that is not what you said and it is not what you refered to by quoting the passage ......

Its exactly what I said.


How in the hell could two very different countries thousands of miles apart with very different politics , very different histories , very different populations , very different systems of government and administration , very different national and international issues/problems be in any way identical ?????


Their not as different as you say. I will give you they are not indentical but what good for one is generally good for the other. The only other countries that are in the same boat would be Britain and Ausrailia.


And to make a statement that most Americans think this is true is insulting the intelligence of most Americans . There is a very big difference between supporting Israel and saying that Israeli and American interests are identical .

Of course their not idenrtical or Israel would be a state of the Uinon. The point is most americans back Israel and its policies and see them as one of our greatest allies.

[Tribesman]

The point is most americans back Israel and its policies and see them as one of our greatest allies.
Which comes back to ........

What ? the total lack of objectivity on the Israeli question
How many Israeli policies do most Americans even know anything about ? Or which parties policies are they backing , there are many parties with many different policies , and since there is a long history of ever changing coilitions in government which parties in which coilitions are they backing ?

So what are they backing ? do they even have any idea ?
Or is it just "Israel good , Palestine Bad" ?
Perhaps you could answer this one on policy , if Israel is your friend , and the new government in Iraq is your friend , then why are they still at war ? And when are policies going to change so that your two friends are no longer at war with each other .~;)

The only other countries that are in the same boat would be Britain and Ausrailia.
~D ~D ~D
Perhaps you might want to think about that one a little more .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

if Israel is your friend , and the new government in Iraq is your friend , then why are they still at war ?

Thats news to me. Maybe you could provide a link.

[Tribesman]

Thats news to me.
Well it looks like I have made a mistake , I most humbly apologise Gawain :bow: , all this time through all the discussions on the middle-east I had thought that it was a lack of objectivity that led to some of your more dubious "facts" in your posts about Isreal and the arabs , now I know it is just lack of knowledge .
Maybe you could provide a link.
Try a search , it isn't hard to do , perhaps you might start with the creation of the state of Israel , or the Arab Israeli conflict , or the middle eastern peace process~:rolleyes:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well it looks like I have made a mistake , I most humbly apologise Gawain , all this time through all the discussions on the middle-east I had thought that it was a lack of objectivity that led to some of your more dubious "facts" in your posts about Isreal and the arabs , now I know it is just lack of knowledge .

At least I can comprehend what I post unlike you. You dont even understand what you post.

Maybe you could provide a link.
Try a search , it isn't hard to do , perhaps you might start with the creation of the state of Israel , or the Arab Israeli conflict , or the middle eastern peace process



if Israel is your friend , and the new government in Iraq is your friend , then why are they still at war ? And when are policies going to change so that your two friends are no longer at war with each other .



Now I ask you once more to stop trying to be clever and answer a question directly for once in your life. When did the new government of Iraq or the current government of Israel declare war on eachother? Your talking nonsense here.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Joe cost the Democrats 3million votes in 2000. He owes his allegance to Israel, and if he were arrested tomorrow as an Israeli spy? I for one would not be surprised.
heh...


And I ask...

SO ****ING WHAT?

I mean, so what that he cost the Demonicrats 3 million votes? Seriously? That was a good thing! I don't want Mr. I Invented the Internet as President. Neither did America. It's democracy. And you speak against it.

Evil evil evil! *slap on wrist*

[Tribesman]

Gawain a state of war exists until a peace settlement is completed regardless of changes of government . Since the new government is apparently your friend then maybe its time you made some big payments to them for them to declare the war over , though I think their friends over the border may try to interfere with that .~;)
Your talking nonsense here.
No Gawain I am talking fact .

[ichi]

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

This is a huge oversimplification. If the vast majority of Iraqis were 'on our side' they'd rout those 10K with the help of the greatest superpower. But they're not on our side.

Almost 50% of Iraqis polled think it is acceptable to attack Americans, a whopping 80+% want American troops out of the country.

The numbers also understate the complex and deeply-rooted issues between the various factions in Iraq. Many Iraqis are terrorizing our troops because they don't want Americans on their soil, just as we Americans would resist a foreign power occupying the US. Others are fighting a civil war, a tribal war, that won't ever be resolved.

People are supporting terrorists, even becoming terrorists, in order to remove Americans from Iraq. Even Al Zaqwari really doesn't represent a threat to US soil, because he is fighting in Iraq.

So Joe is feeding us a little bull. He isn't shooting straight because he doesn't want to appear soft and because it is in the interests of Israel to keep troops in Iraq. He oversimplifies the situation.

The Homeland Security folks just got failing grades for their efforts in securing the US from terrorism. Emergency agencies still can't talk to one another on radios at disaster sites, four years after the problem was identified at the Pentagon and the WTC responses. We still do not have secure borders, agencies still do not share information, there still is no single profile database, the list is quite long.

The main reason we have failed is that our attention, and dollars, and national will, are all being wasted in Iraq, a war of choice.

Remember, it was Osama that attacked us, and he's a Saudi. Where's Osama now? We were slow and understaffed in our efforts to grab bin Laden, then totally distracted by Iraq. We still haven't caught him and don't have any reason, four years after the fact, that he will soon be brought to justice.

Instead we attacked Iraq, and there is no plan in place that objective observers believe will accomplish our stated goals. Syria is still a problem and there's not enough troops to secure the Iraq/Syria border. We do control most of Iraq, there are huge heavily armed militias roaming the country, and massive unemployment. Add to that mix the resentment factor and you have a recipe for disaster.

Of course, no one wants to talk about the fact that we are deeply in debt. We run a huge trade deficit with China, we are exporting jobs oversees rapidly, the war drains all our $$$ into no-bid contracts that go to Bush and Cheney's cronies.

So read Joe's speech and think, look, a sensible Dem. But he's not shooting straight on this.

ichi:bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain a state of war exists until a peace settlement is completed regardless of changes of government .

Baloney. Ask any Israeli or Iraqi if their at war with eachother? The Israelis were at war with the government of Saddam not this one.But thanks for backing up our assertion that the 1st gulf war never ended and thus we were justified to resume hostilities.

[Xiahou]

So read Joe's speech and think, look, a sensible Dem. But he's not shooting straight on this.Joe isnt the only one not shooting straight methinks.

Of course, no one wants to talk about the fact that we are deeply in debt. We run a huge trade deficit with China, we are exporting jobs oversees rapidly, the war drains all our $$$ into no-bid contracts that go to Bush and Cheney's cronies.This is just really comical. We run trade deficits with China? So what? That statistic is meaningless in terms of our economic health. I'm really getting sick of saying this, but a trade deficit is no more a sign of economic weakness than a trade surplus is of strength. I can show you many economies with solid trade surpluses and terrible economies with high unemployment. Our economic growth is strong and sustained, even in light of the devastation wrought by Katrina and we have historically low unemployment with a net gain of jobs under the current administration.


Almost 50% of Iraqis polled think it is acceptable to attack Americans, a whopping 80+% want American troops out of the country.
I believe the number is 45%- which would imply that 55% -a majority- do not think it acceptable to attack American troops. It'd be better were it 100%, but obviously given the tentions in Iraq, this number isn't all that suprising. 80% want American troops out? What a shocker- most Iraqis want to be an independant country that is capable of defending itself... duh. Where's the polling data on how many want American troops to leave immediately- not eventually?

What's really ludicrous about the Democratic "mainstream" position is that Iraq would somehow be better off without our presence. Murtha actually came out today and said that if we leave, terrorism would stop in Iraq- that's utter nonsense to anyone with any knowledge on the situation in Iraq. Democrats also are blind to the damage that a pullout would do to our foreign policy efforts. Terrorists have long been working under the assumption that if you can cause enough US casualties, we will tuck our tail between our legs and retreat- all a pullout would do is confirm this in their minds. We can talk amongst ourselves about how a 'strategic withdrawal' would be the smart thing to do, ect- but dont fool yourselves by thinking that the terrorists would view out withdrawal as anything but a victory- costing us all our remaining credibility in the region.

[Leet Eriksson]

Baloney. Ask any Israeli or Iraqi if their at war with eachother? The Israelis were at war with the government of Saddam not this one.But thanks for backing up our assertion that the 1st gulf war never ended and thus we were justified to resume hostilities.

The government of iraq is not at war with isreal, although i'm not sure 100% about that, but i can safely say, most iraqis hate the guts of isrealis.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but i can safely say, most iraqis hate the guts of isrealis.


As do most arabs and muslims in the region. How nice.

[Leet Eriksson]

As do most arabs and muslims in the region. How nice.

http://www.ctgilles.net/images/pictars/master_obvious.jpg

Yes, now back to where you left off.


Baloney. Ask any Israeli or Iraqi if their at war with eachother? The Israelis were at war with the government of Saddam not this one.But thanks for backing up our assertion that the 1st gulf war never ended and thus we were justified to resume hostilities.

[Tribesman]

The Israelis were at war with the government of Saddam not this one.
No Gawain the state of war between the States has existed unchanged for over 50 years , it has remained in existance through many changes of government .

Ask any Israeli or Iraqi if their at war with eachother?
Perhaps you should , a little education wouldn't be a bad thing for you would it . ~:rolleyes:
Maybe you could try the Knesset website for facts to ease the pain of swallowing yourBaloney.

But thanks for backing up our assertion that the 1st gulf war never ended and thus we were justified to resume hostilities.
Now that is baloney Gawain as the ceasefire and settlement were between the UN and Iraq , superceding the previous one involving individual coilition members so it is up to that organisation to authorise resumption of open hostilities not individual members . America lost that individual right when it agreed to the later terms .

[Xiahou]

http://www.ctgilles.net/images/pictars/master_obvious.jpg
Awesome pic. :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain as the ceasefire and settlement were between the UN and Iraq ,

No its was between the coaltion(us and Britain) and Iraq . The UN wasnt a participant in the war.

[Tribesman]

No its was between the coaltion(us and Britain) and Iraq . The UN wasnt a participant in the war.

Perhaps you had better learn something about the Gulf war while you learn about the Arab-Israeli war then Gawain .~:rolleyes:

[Xiahou]

No its was between the coaltion(us and Britain) and Iraq . The UN wasnt a participant in the war.

Perhaps you had better learn something about the Gulf war while you learn about the Arab-Israeli war then Gawain .~:rolleyes:
So wait, you're claiming that the UN as an organization declared war with Iraq? ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker:
I think you've just given Gawain alot of credibility with that comment.~;)

[Tribesman]

I think you've just given Gawain alot of credibility with that comment
So wait, you're claiming that the UN as an organization declared war with Iraq?
Oh dear another Muppet . read what I wrote
Try examining resolution 678 which authorizies the conflict and then 687 that sets the conditions for concluding the conflict , perhaps you could tell me which part of the British or American governments issued those documents then try and tell me it was America and Britain and not the UN Xiahou~:rolleyes:

If you wish you can examine the negotiations between the UN and Iraq for a peaceful resolution to the invasion and occupation , one of Iraqs demands relate directly to its decades old war with Israel .~:handball:
And funnily enough another of Iraqs demands was exactly the same demand that the US has been making for years .~D ~D ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Please tell me when the UN took over command of US forces in the region. It was the US who agreed to the ceasefire the UN was just a broker.

[Redleg]

Please tell me when the UN took over command of US forces in the region. It was the US who agreed to the ceasefire the UN was just a broker.

It was the United States - specifically President Bush who set the conditions for the cease fire and Iraq agreed to those conditions - all signed at Safwon around the 1st of March - take a good look at the date that Resolution 687 was passed by the Security Council - which is in April.

Oh by the way - I didn't see a UN representive nor a UN flag at Safwon when the cease fire was signed by Iraq.

Nothing like being there.

[Xiahou]

Please tell me when the UN took over command of US forces in the region. It was the US who agreed to the ceasefire the UN was just a broker.Is it even fair to say the UN was a broker? We passed security council resolutions and the coalition waged war until Iraq agreed to the resolutions as a part of the ceasefire. I think calling them even a broker still gives the UN too important a role in it. ~;)

Regardless, Tribesman obviously has some very starry-eyed notions about the role of the UN in the conflict. I dont recall seeing any Blue helmets in combat, nor do I remember the UN being a party to the cease-fire agreement. The UN isn't a state- it can't declare war anymore than it can be a party to the ceasefire. ~:joker: Sorry, that's still funny to me. :laugh:

[Tribesman]

It was the US who agreed to the ceasefire the UN was just a broker.
Which ceasefire Gawain , the interim one done by the coilition working under UN authority or the final one by the UN under its own authority ?
Note the keywords of "under" "interim" "final" and "authority"...so less of your baloney eh .

I dont recall seeing any Blue helmets in combat
Would that be because units wearing blue hemets are peacekeeping forces Xiahou ?

take a good look at the date that Resolution 687 was passed by the Security Council - which is in April.

Yes Donkey take a very good look , it supercedes the earlier one which means the earlier one is redundant .
So you are all focusing on a redundant document , congratulations , learn to move with the times eh .

Finally ,
Oh by the way - I didn't see a UN representive nor a UN flag at Safwon when the cease fire was signed by Iraq.

But Red you were a UN representative , as was every other coilition member since they were all acting under the authority of the UN . Unless they were specifically within Saudi Arabia defending Saudi Arabia under a Bi-lateral agreement. But since the ceasefire is not about an invasion of Saudi Arabia they shouldn't have been at the meeting should they .

[Xiahou]

Finally ,
Oh by the way - I didn't see a UN representive nor a UN flag at Safwon when the cease fire was signed by Iraq.

But Red you were a UN representative , as was every other coilition member since they were all acting under the authority of the UN . Unless they were specifically within Saudi Arabia defending Saudi Arabia under a Bi-lateral agreement. But since the ceasefire is not about an invasion of Saudi Arabia they shouldn't have been at the meeting should they .
Wow, you still don't get it. Had China authorized the coalition to invade, would everyone at the ceasefire talks been representitives of China? :dizzy:
The UN couldn't compel nations to be members of the coalition anymore than it could force nations not to be members. All that UN approval of the invasion did was give justification to nations that needed it- they still acted on their own sovereign authority to join the coalition. The UN had no control over its composition, size, strategy, tactics or anything else. ~:handball:

[Tribesman]

Wow, you still don't get it.
No Xiahou you do not get it , it is quite simple , you may write....
The UN had no control over its composition, size, strategy, tactics or anything else. ...
but that is entirely irrelevant (and not entirely correct either for that matter) , it was mandated under the authority of the UN , its purpose was stipulated by the UN , its deadline for taking action if Iraq did not comply to the demands was set by the UN who also set the demands , the terms of settlement was put forward and finalised by the UN .
It wouldn't matter if 74% of the forces came from Micronesia and its commanding generals were Micronesian , just as it doesn't matter that in this case the US took Micronesias role .
Learn to live with it , its a fact .

The UN couldn't compel nations to be members of the coalition anymore than it could force nations not to be members.
Right on the first part wrong on the second , the UN could of , if it wished , refused any nation the right to join the UN mandated coilition .

[Redleg]

[
take a good look at the date that Resolution 687 was passed by the Security Council - which is in April.

Yes Donkey take a very good look , it supercedes the earlier one which means the earlier one is redundant .
So you are all focusing on a redundant document , congratulations , learn to move with the times eh .

Name calling it seems - tsk tsk

The cease fire agreement was signed by the United States, Iraq and others. This document is a binding agreement in itself - Resolution 687 from the United Nations re-inforces the ceasefire it does not necessarily make it void.




Finally ,
Oh by the way - I didn't see a UN representive nor a UN flag at Safwon when the cease fire was signed by Iraq.

But Red you were a UN representative , as was every other coilition member since they were all acting under the authority of the UN.


You would be incorrect - I served under the United States command authority. Not the United Nations. The tag on my left breast pocket states United States Army, and the flag on my right shoulder was a United States Flag. The one on my left shoulder was the 1st Infantry Division Patch. Nowhere was the United Nations authority on the battlefield and neither was it involved in the negotated cease fire which was done under the direction of President Bush Sr.



. Unless they were specifically within Saudi Arabia defending Saudi Arabia under a Bi-lateral agreement. But since the ceasefire is not about an invasion of Saudi Arabia they shouldn't have been at the meeting should they .

LOL - Saudi had troops involved in the ground campaign

SAUDI ARABIA - 118,000 troops, 550 tanks, 180 airplanes

Now it wasn't all of them - but a brigade of Saudi Troops went into Kuwait City.....

[Xiahou]

You would be incorrect - I served under the United States command authority. Not the United Nations. The tag on my left breast pocket states United States Army, and the flag on my right shoulder was a United States Flag. The one on my left shoulder was the 1st Infantry Division Patch. Nowhere was the United Nations authority on the battlefield and neither was it involved in the negotated cease fire which was done under the direction of President Bush Sr.Dont you see? You were actually under the control and authority of an organization that is not a state, had no troops in the field, had no commanders, and had no command authority on any of the battlefield decisions. Oh, and also, they were the real party that Iraq signed the ceasefire with, even though they weren't at the location nor were they signatories- as opposed to the commanders from the nations who were actually there that did sign.... It's all so clear. :dizzy:

[Tribesman]

This document is a binding agreement in itself - Resolution 687 from the United Nations re-inforces the ceasefire it does not necessarily make it void.

Binding until a final settlement is drawn up Red , which it was , one month later , so it is void .

The tag on my left breast pocket states United States Army, and the flag on my right shoulder was a United States Flag.
And they would still be present if you wore a blue helmet as a UN peackeeper instead of being part of a UN mandated coilition . So your point is ?????

Nowhere was the United Nations authority on the battlefield and neither was it involved in the negotated cease fire which was done under the direction of President Bush Sr.

Which was superceded by the UN negotiated ceasefire . ~:rolleyes:
The whole coilition was under the authority of the UN , so which forces and which battlefield were they not involved in ?
Now just for interest as I am sure you know the details , Bush directed the cessation of hostilities because of what ?
Would it be because the military action had achieved the mandated aims of the coilition forcing Iraqi compliance with the UN terms ?

LOL - Saudi had troops involved in the ground campaign

Yes Saudi Arabia was part of the UN mandated coilition , its airforce was also involved , but what has that got to do with a bi-lateral defense pact ....nothing .

[Redleg]

This document is a binding agreement in itself - Resolution 687 from the United Nations re-inforces the ceasefire it does not necessarily make it void.

Binding until a final settlement is drawn up Red , which it was , one month later , so it is void .

So says you - I see it completely different. Care to see the professional legal arguements again?



The tag on my left breast pocket states United States Army, and the flag on my right shoulder was a United States Flag.
And they would still be present if you wore a blue helmet as a UN peackeeper instead of being part of a UN mandated coilition . So your point is ?????

I wasn't wearing the Blue Helment of the UN - so I was not acting under the authority of the United Nations. I was acting under the authority of the United States Command Authority. That's the point Tribesman it was not a United Nations mission. It was a collation of nations lead by the United States acting against Iraq with the permission of the United Nations.



Nowhere was the United Nations authority on the battlefield and neither was it involved in the negotated cease fire which was done under the direction of President Bush Sr.

Which was superceded by the UN negotiated ceasefire . ~:rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want - the UN resolution 687 was a rubberstamp by the Security Council of what the United States forced Iraq to accept or face destruction..



The whole coilition was under the authority of the UN , so which forces and which battlefield were they not involved in ?

Wrong - the United Nations has no authority. You might want to check the charter. Edit: This is not completely correct either - but lets see if you understand the charter of the United Nations and what remains as the soverign authority of each nation.



Now just for interest as I am sure you know the details , Bush directed the cessation of hostilities because of what ?

Because the stated goals of the collation were accomplished...



Would it be because the military action had achieved the mandated aims of the coilition forcing Iraqi compliance with the UN terms ?

Yep the Primary reason - the collation accomplished its agreed upon mission.



LOL - Saudi had troops involved in the ground campaign

Yes Saudi Arabia was part of the UN mandated coilition , its airforce was also involved , but what has that got to do with a bi-lateral defense pact ....nothing .

Just answering your question about why Saudi Arabia was present at the signing of the cease fire. It seems you don't want to ackownledge that their troops also particapated in the offensive operations against Iraq. Your whole attempt here is nothing but misdirection.

[Tribesman]

Care to see the professional legal arguements again?

Go ahead , there are not very many lawyers that would try to argue that an earlier agreement takes prescedence over an agreement that replaces it with the consent of all parties .

wasn't wearing the Blue Helment of the UN - so I was not acting under the authority of the United Nations.
~:doh: Blue helmets are peacekeeping missions Red , you were not on a peacekeeping deployment were you , so that rules out Blue helmets . But you were part of a UN mandated coilition so no matter how much it chokes you up you were acting under the authority of the UN .

Because the stated goals of the collation were accomplished...

Because the mandated goals stipulated by the UN were accomplished .(check Bushs speech ~;) )

the UN resolution 687 was a rubberstamp by the Security Council of what the United States forced Iraq to accept or face destruction..
No as the United States and the coilition were not mandated to destroy Iraq were they , only to force compliance of the UN resoliutions , there was no resolution and therefore no authority to destroy Iraq was there . 687 was not a rubber-stamp operation was it , it was a full and final document

Just answering your question about why Saudi Arabia was present at the signing of the cease fire
What question ? Read what I wrote Red I don't mention Saudi Arabia being present at all , neither do I mention any of the other 30+ members of the coilition . I mention a bi-lateral pact which is entirely seperate from the UN coilition .

It seems you don't want to ackownledge that their troops also particapated in the offensive operations against Iraq.
~D ~D ~D oh my ~D ~D ~D
Your whole attempt here is nothing but misdirection.
Misdirection Red , are you sure you even know which direction you are facing ? It seems not .

[Redleg]

Care to see the professional legal arguements again?

Go ahead , there are not very many lawyers that would try to argue that an earlier agreement takes prescedence over an agreement that replaces it with the consent of all parties .

It seems that your not willing then - do a little research there are arguements for the Invasion of Iraq that make sense using the terms of the Cease Fire and even the resolution itself. Just like there are good arguements saying that it was wrong.



wasn't wearing the Blue Helment of the UN - so I was not acting under the authority of the United Nations.
~:doh: Blue helmets are peacekeeping missions Red , you were not on a peacekeeping deployment were you , so that rules out Blue helmets . But you were part of a UN mandated coilition so no matter how much it chokes you up you were acting under the authority of the UN .

Again you are incorrect - did the United States give up its soverginity when it joined the United Nations?

You might want to check out what authority the United Nations does have and what it doesn't have. Give you a hint - it only has the authority a nation wants to give it. Look at the 12 years of the failure of Iraq to comply with the United Nations Resolutions against it. Or any other nation for that matter.

Again soldiers of the United States Military act under the authority of the United States Command Authority.



Because the stated goals of the collation were accomplished...

Because the mandated goals stipulated by the UN were accomplished .(check Bushs speech ~;) )

Notice how your repeating me now - ~:joker:



the UN resolution 687 was a rubberstamp by the Security Council of what the United States forced Iraq to accept or face destruction..
No as the United States and the coilition were not mandated to destroy Iraq were they , only to force compliance of the UN resoliutions , there was no resolution and therefore no authority to destroy Iraq was there . 687 was not a rubber-stamp operation was it , it was a full and final document.


That came after the negoatated cease fire done by the United States acting on its own authority - and later owned made into a resolution by the United Nations.




Just answering your question about why Saudi Arabia was present at the signing of the cease fire
What question ? Read what I wrote Red I don't mention Saudi Arabia being present at all , neither do I mention any of the other 30+ members of the coilition . I mention a bi-lateral pact which is entirely seperate from the UN coilition .

LOL here is what you wrote.


But Red you were a UN representative , as was every other coilition member since they were all acting under the authority of the UN . Unless they were specifically within Saudi Arabia defending Saudi Arabia under a Bi-lateral agreement. But since the ceasefire is not about an invasion of Saudi Arabia they shouldn't have been at the meeting should they .

LOL - your attempt at misdirection does not stand the light of the sun. So who shouldn't have been at the Cease Fire signing at Safwon. The United States, Iraq, France, Britian, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Canada, the UAE and about 25 other nations? The cease fire was witness by individual nations acting in their own interests.



It seems you don't want to ackownledge that their troops also particapated in the offensive operations against Iraq.
~D ~D ~D oh my ~D ~D ~D
Your whole attempt here is nothing but misdirection.
Misdirection Red , are you sure you even know which direction you are facing ? It seems not .

LOL - the pot calling the kettle black. Are you sure of what you are trying to argue. Again notice what I said about the whole paragraph regarding this bit.



Just answering your question about why Saudi Arabia was present at the signing of the cease fire. It seems you don't want to ackownledge that their troops also particapated in the offensive operations against Iraq. Your whole attempt here is nothing but misdirection.

[Xiahou]

*sigh* Resolution 687 was not a ceasefire agreement. It was passed by the security council- this it was a security council resolution. It had nothing to do with the ceasefire- the warring parties were not signatories. Find me the part of 686 that says anything about a ceasefire. ~:handball:

Where's Pindar? ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

*sigh* Resolution 687 was not a ceasefire agreement

Who needs a ceaefire when one has already been in effect. Hey lets have another ceasefire so we can take credit for it. What a load of nonsense some people spew forth here. Besides that since tribesman also brought up a war isnt over until a peace treaty is signed , when was the peace treaty signed between the US and Iraq. Oh that right Iraq was at war with the UN right?

[Tribesman]

Again you are incorrect - did the United States give up its soverginity when it joined the United Nations?
Have I ever mentioned soveriegnty in this thread ?
So how can I be incorrect
Again soldiers of the United States Military act under the authority of the United States Command Authority.

And in this case the US command authority was acting under UN authority. Is it that hard for you to comprehend .
Notice how your repeating me now -
Yes but you seem to have a strange aversion to the use of two letters Red, shall I repeat them for you ...UN .
That came after the negoatated cease fire done by the United States acting on its own authority - and later owned made into a resolution by the United Nations.
Yes and the US was acting under UN mandate , so unless the US doesn't recognise the UN or the UN resolution then the UN resolution supercedes the earlier one.

LOL - your attempt at misdirection does not stand the light of the sun.
Ah poor red you only highlighted one bit shall I help you....
Unless they were specifically within Saudi Arabia defending Saudi Arabia under a Bi-lateral agreement.
though of course that does ignore the fact that you answered a question that was never asked , and attacked a statement that were never made . misdirection eh Red~:rolleyes:

*sigh* Resolution 687 was not a ceasefire agreement.
Then do tell good lady , what is it then ?~:eek:


Oh that right Iraq was at war with the UN right?
Errrr ....when has anyone said that Gawain ?
Anything relevant to contribute ???
Oh BTW any luck on showing that Iraq and Israel are not at war ???
I had expected you to throw in a lame attempt with the Israel/Jordan agreement , though of course that only covers Iraqi troop transfers , funny things ceasefires and peace treaties arn't they . Is that why you get so confused over them .
Who needs a ceaefire when one has already been in effect.
Oh dear Gawain your knowledge of military history is sorely lacking for a military man , would you like dozens of examples ?
~D ~D ~D

[Redleg]

Again you are incorrect - did the United States give up its soverginity when it joined the United Nations?
Have I ever mentioned soveriegnty in this thread ?
So how can I be incorrect

If the United States has never given up its soveriegnity - then its actions still fall within its own purview.



Again soldiers of the United States Military act under the authority of the United States Command Authority.

And in this case the US command authority was acting under UN authority. Is it that hard for you to comprehend .

The United States was acting on its own authority - check out who got the UN resolution through the security council asking for UN permission for offensive operations.





Notice how your repeating me now -
Yes but you seem to have a strange aversion to the use of two letters Red, shall I repeat them for you ...UN .

The United Nations is not a soverign nation - it has no authority.. that is the point,



That came after the negoatated cease fire done by the United States acting on its own authority - and later owned made into a resolution by the United Nations.
Yes and the US was acting under UN mandate , so unless the US doesn't recognise the UN or the UN resolution then the UN resolution supercedes the earlier one.

Noted



LOL - your attempt at misdirection does not stand the light of the sun.
Ah poor red you only highlighted one bit shall I help you....
Unless they were specifically within Saudi Arabia defending Saudi Arabia under a Bi-lateral agreement.
though of course that does ignore the fact that you answered a question that was never asked , and attacked a statement that were never made . misdirection eh Red~:rolleyes:

Yep - by both of us - notice the comment once again.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And in this case the US command authority was acting under UN authority. Is it that hard for you to comprehend .


You are the one with the comprehension difficulties. The UN merely made a resolution condeming Saddam.

It was the US that gathered up a coalition and fought the war. The existence of the UN was irelevant save to add more moral high ground to the war.

You seem to be confusing the UN saying action against a country would be ok, and the UN actually raising an army from member nations and fighting.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

The United Nations is not a soverign nation - it has no authority.. that is the point,

soooooo.....it has no authority ..yet....
asking for UN permission for offensive operations.

Which is it Red ? if it has no authority then surely you wouldn't have to ask permission would you . But you wanted permission to form a coilition under UN authority to give it international legitimacy , but you said it has no authority to give legitimacy as it isn't a soveriegn nation....make up your mind
Oh and...check out who got the UN resolution through the security council
That would be the permanent members of the security council wouldn't it , but I thought you said that the UN had no authority .

[Redleg]

The United Nations is not a soverign nation - it has no authority.. that is the point,

soooooo.....it has no authority ..yet....
asking for UN permission for offensive operations.

Which is it Red ? if it has no authority then surely you wouldn't have to ask permission would you . But you wanted permission to form a coilition under UN authority to give it international legitimacy , but you said it has no authority to give legitimacy as it isn't a soveriegn nation....make up your mind

We all know what the United Nations is - it is a place to draw consenus on what course of action a nation or group of nations wish to take with the International community. Permission is to strong of a word for what the United Nations actually grants a nation when it asks for a consenus of opinion about what it would like to do on the international stage - but its the only word that I could think of that was simple enough to describe what is actually done and given by the United Nations. In short its a nod or a head shake of the International Community concerning any action - but without any ability to enforce its decsision. Without the ability to enforce a decision - there is no authority. Without responsiblity there is no authority.

What the United Nation's consensus does is a form of legitimacy for international actions from the world community based upon opinion - but not getting the consenus does not make the action illegal.

Unfortunately once a nation attempts to ask for consensus to gain international approval for its actions and fail to get the consensus, the actions of said nation becomes questionable by the International community.

But authority is drawn by certain aspects of command and control. Ask yourself this question - what power does the United Nations have?

According to Joe Clark from Canada, who seems to know more then you on the subject. Written in 1994 I believe, so some of the reputation of the United Nations has fallen since this piece was written.




I know as a foreign minister who presided over the debate in his own country that friends of the United Nations disagreed genuinely about the appropriateness of the Gulf War. I don't intend to open that discussion on its merits here, but I believe that decision substantially increased the capacity of the United Nations to function effectively today. Everyone accepts that the Cold War seriously constrained the UN, but it did not necessarily follow that the end of the Cold War would lead to a stronger role for the UN. It was, for example, not at all inconceivable that there could have been a multinational response to Iraq outside UN auspices. That would have marginalized and divided the UN. It is not marginal now. Indeed it is one of the small handful of institutions whose reputation is stronger today than it was a decade ago. One could ask, how many legions has the secretary-general? In fact, in tangible terms, he has more than any of his predecessors, because countries like Canada have now made standby commitments to the United Nations. And there are serious proposals, however merited, to have a standing UN force. But the more relevant answer is that the authority of the UN has become more real, not just moral authority. No writ runs everywhere and naturally there will be forces the UN cannot persuade, but it is an actor now in center stage to a degree it was not before. That is a very risky place to be. And too many mistakes will erode both public confidence and the confidence of the member states. But the United Nations was not established to stay out of trouble. On the contrary! Its willingness to become involved is particularly important in this time when there are relatively more troubles and fewer institutions able to deal with them. I'm not qualified to comment specifically on reform and the organization of UN peacekeeping. Given the recent burst of demand, it would not be surprising that practical reforms are necessary.

But there is a generic problem too, and its elements are worth considering. Most nations are organized so it is clear where the buck stops, where the ultimate authority to decide resides. The UN is not a nation and does not have one final authority. As a practical matter, major decisions require the active support of both the secretary-general and the Security Council, and they require the acquiescence at least of the General Assembly. A lot can be done in the name of more efficiency, but I strongly doubt that any of those three institutions will fold their claims. In the case of both the Security Council and the General Assembly, collective decisions require individual decisions by member states, which means consulting home governments and debates at home. So UN decision making is inherently more complex than in any domestic government.


http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/pubs/unclark.html




Oh and...check out who got the UN resolution through the security council
That would be the permanent members of the security council wouldn't it , but I thought you said that the UN had no authority .[/quote]

One nation in particlur did most of the work on getting the resolution through...

That is correct the United Nations has no authority - it can only pass resolutions and consensus of opinions. If the United Nations had any authority each and everyone of its resolutions would be enforced. Care to guess how many resolutions are passed and never enforced - authority requires responsibility. Without accepting the responsibility to enforce its own consenus of opinion the United Nations has wasted the limited authority that it was building after the 1990 Gulf War.

The United Nations has marginalized itself because of its own inefficiency.

[Tribesman]

So Red it has authority only if given authority by its member states , and that authority can be blocked (as far as the security council is concerned) if a permanant member blocks it ....so as it was given the authority and no permanant member blocked it then it has authority . So what happened to the claim that it had no authority ??????

As to the rest of this topic (or the turn it has taken) I offer my sincere apologies for my mistakes .:bow:
I now realise fully that every time the UN ceasefire is mentioned by the Administration they do not mean the UN ceasefire resolution , every time they mention the date of enactment they do not mean the date of enactment they mean a redundant one from an earlier month , every time they mention a clause or article from said document they do not mean said document they really mean an earlier redundant one , every time they mention UN authority and resolutions they do not mean UN authority or resolutions . every time they mention violations of clauses or articles they do not mean the documents that contain those clauses or articles they mean one that doesn't contain them .
Oh how could I have been so mistaken ~:mecry: surely all the references from the Administration and the military to the Safwon documents should have given me a clue...how could I have ever imagined all of the references to the UN resolution and the absence of reference to the earlier redundant paperwork ~;p

Oh and just to add Red , or in this case Donkey.
It seems you don't want to ackownledge that their troops also particapated in the offensive operations against Iraq.
Wheres the windmills Oaty ? or are you refering to a Gawains world post
No its was between the coaltion(us and Britain) and Iraq ~D ~D ~D
But thats only Gawain , he is becoming as reliable as Devastating~;)

[Redleg]

So Red it has authority only if given authority by its member states , and that authority can be blocked (as far as the security council is concerned) if a permanant member blocks it ....so as it was given the authority and no permanant member blocked it then it has authority . So what happened to the claim that it had no authority ??????

That is not what I have stated. Without the ability to enforce and take responsibility for its decisions - their is no authority.




As to the rest of this topic (or the turn it has taken) I offer my sincere apologies for my mistakes .:bow:
I now realise fully that every time the UN ceasefire is mentioned by the Administration they do not mean the UN ceasefire resolution , every time they mention the date of enactment they do not mean the date of enactment they mean a redundant one from an earlier month , every time they mention a clause or article from said document they do not mean said document they really mean an earlier redundant one , every time they mention UN authority and resolutions they do not mean UN authority or resolutions . every time they mention violations of clauses or articles they do not mean the documents that contain those clauses or articles they mean one that doesn't contain them .

I don't speak for the Adminstration - I speak for myself.



Oh how could I have been so mistaken ~:mecry: surely all the references from the Administration and the military to the Safwon documents should have given me a clue...how could I have ever imagined all of the references to the UN resolution and the absence of reference to the earlier redundant paperwork ~;p

Yep you have been mistaken - by confusing what I have stated for being something other then my opinion.



Oh and just to add Red , or in this case Donkey.
It seems you don't want to ackownledge that their troops also particapated in the offensive operations against Iraq.
Wheres the windmills Oaty ? or are you refering to a Gawains world post

Name calling is beneath you Tribesman by doing so - you have just acknowledge that your point is not consistent, ie the last resort of a failed arguement is to resort to name calling and bluster. I know you want me to respond in kind - but not today. You have laid out your own rat trap and have fallen into it.



No its was between the coaltion(us and Britain) and Iraq ~D ~D ~D
But thats only Gawain , he is becoming as reliable as Devastating~;)

Not at all - the cease fire consisted of all countries that particapted in the collation. The breaking of the cease fire by Iraq allows each country to decide on its own if it was going to re-initate hostilities because of the violation of the treaty. A few countries chose to enforce the cease fire treaty - many chose not to enforce it.

[Xiahou]

So Red it has authority only if given authority by its member states , and that authority can be blocked (as far as the security council is concerned) if a permanant member blocks it ....so as it was given the authority and no permanant member blocked it then it has authority . So what happened to the claim that it had no authority ??????It only has the authority that it's individual members give it- no more. As you point out, any permanent council member can block a resolution- but even more obvious, is that any member affected by a resolution is totally free to ignore it (and usually does) unless it is enforced by an individual member nation. But all of this is just muddying the waters and is a smokescreen to hide your lack of a credible argument...

The simple facts are that the UN was in command of no troops, and it took no part in the cease-fire agreement. Even if the text of the cease-fire was the same as 687, word for word (it's not) it would still be an agreement between the warring parties- which the UN is not one of. This is plain to everyone, apparently, but you.

[Tribesman]

That is not what I have stated.

Really ?
it has no authority.. that is the point,


Yep you have been mistaken - by confusing what I have stated for being something other then my opinion.
So is your opinion backed by fact ?If not then you opinion is worthless other than the fact that it is yours .

I know you want me to respond in kind - but not today.

Ah poor Red where is your eye for comedy today ? Oh I forgot , you cannot see it when it is actually there you can only see it when it is absent .Would you like some imaginary tulips to go with your imaginary windmills ? perhaps a nice pair of imaginary clogs for good measure~D ~D ~D

Not at all - the cease fire consisted of all countries that particapted in the collation.
And what has that got to do with the passage you quoted ? Nothing
Furthermore since the coilition was under the mandated authority of the UN then that is the body that has the authority , not individual members . Though they can take action as soveriegn states they cannot take action under the mandated authority without that authorities sayso . So they cannot use the resolution as an excuse , and they cannot use the earlier ceasefire since they agreed to the later one which makes the earlier one redundant .

[Redleg]

That is not what I have stated.

Really ?
it has no authority.. that is the point,




Not all that hard to understand now is it?



Yep you have been mistaken - by confusing what I have stated for being something other then my opinion.
So is your opinion backed by fact ?If not then you opinion is worthless other than the fact that it is yours .


Much like yours - isn't? But I would wager I have a few more facts in this matter then yourself. First hand experience being one of them.



I know you want me to respond in kind - but not today.

Ah poor Red where is your eye for comedy today ? Oh I forgot , you cannot see it when it is actually there you can only see it when it is absent .Would you like some imaginary tulips to go with your imaginary windmills ? perhaps a nice pair of imaginary clogs for good measure~D ~D ~D

Oh I see it - your rather amusing. Intermixing discussions from different threads - has led you astray.

Again name calling and bluster is the resort of a failed arguement.



Not at all - the cease fire consisted of all countries that particapted in the collation.
And what has that got to do with the passage you quoted ? Nothing

It shows how the United Nations lacks authority, since it has no soverignty.



Furthermore since the coilition was under the mandated authority of the UN then that is the body that has the authority , not individual members .

I didn't see a United Nations representive in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Iraq. THe General in charge was flying the United States Flag over his headquarters - not a UN flag.



Though they can take action as soveriegn states they cannot take action under the mandated authority without that authorities sayso .

Reality paints a different picture - soveriegn states can do what they decide on - regardless if it has the consenus of the United Nations or not.



So they cannot use the resolution as an excuse , and they cannot use the earlier ceasefire since they agreed to the later one which makes the earlier one redundant .

The cease fire agreement signed between nations is still valid - Resolution 687 did not void the ceasefire. At most it reinforced the ceasefire agreement.

[Tribesman]

Ah , another returns , welcome good lady:bow:
Always game for a laugh ~D
So......
The simple facts are that the UN was in command of no troops,
True , but all the troops in the coilition were mandated under the authority of the UN to achieve objectives (by any means) specified by the UN , in a time frame set by the UN . So as I said before , it could have been Micronesian generals in command and Micronesian troops deployed , it doesn't matter , it is irrelevant . Are you tilting at windmills as well Xiahou ?

Even if the text of the cease-fire was the same as 687, word for word (it's not) it would still be an agreement between the warring parties
You are right, the text of the latter is far more comprehensive in setting the terms is it not , due to the fact that it is a full and final document making the earlier one redundant . Action could have been taken in relation to violations of the earlier agreement , and they were two days after it was signed , but once it is superceded by a more thorough agreement then it becomes redundant
And yes the earlier agreement was between the parties of the coilition involved in the mandated action UNDER U.N. AUTHORITY unless the parties involved were acting under the bi-lateral agreements , which they were not .

[Tribesman]

I didn't see a United Nations representive in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Iraq. THe General in charge was flying the United States Flag over his headquarters - not a UN flag.

See earlier post Red~:rolleyes:

But I would wager I have a few more facts in this matter then yourself. First hand experience being one of them.


Yeah and I stood outside the Palace de Bourbon once so I know all there is to know about French politics:shrug:
Unless of course you mean that you were at the negotiating table drawing up the agreements and engaging in the diplomatic horse trading . Wow that would be some leap wouldn't it , Artillery officer becomes international military statesman , forget Donkey Oaty , how about Napoleon as a new name .~D ~D ~D

It shows how the United Nations lacks authority, since it has no soverignty.

Imaginary windmills again Red , who has said the UN is soveriegn ?

soveriegn states can do what they decide on - regardless if it has the consenus of the United Nations or not.

Ah yes a fundamental flaw in the UN , especially concerning the veto to afforded permanant members of the SC , and the relevance is ????
Besides which if the UN achieves consensus then the soveriegn state has to face the verdict of the UN , be that sanctions , inspection or any means neccesary .

The cease fire agreement signed between nations is still valid - Resolution 687 did not void the ceasefire. At most it reinforced the ceasefire agreement.
No it isn't , If I wrote a contract to buy all the oranges you could produce at $100 /ton , then wrote another contract stipulating that all of the oranges must be of a merchandisable quality , shall be delivered free to my warehouse , your production and delivery must not exceed 100,000 tons and all deliveries must be completed by the 10th month in a 12 month period then the earlier cntract is completely void Red , just as the earleir Iraqi agreement is .
It doesn't just reinforce the earlier agreement it completely redefines it and makes it null and void unless the articles and clauses in the first contract are identical to the second one , which they are not .

[Xiahou]

Even if the text of the cease-fire was the same as 687, word for word (it's not) it would still be an agreement between the warring parties
You are right, the text of the latter is far more comprehensive in setting the terms is it not , due to the fact that it is a full and final document making the earlier one redundant . Action could have been taken in relation to violations of the earlier agreement , and they were two days after it was signed , but once it is superceded by a more thorough agreement then it becomes redundantWhat agreement? Is Iraq on the security council? Did they sign 687 as an addendum to the cease-fire? I think not. It was a statement of intent- nothing more.

[Tribesman]

Dodedodedo de dooooooo
Its on Page 1 of the resolution Xiahou .
Windmills again is it ?
Edit to add , and note Article 1 on page 4 and article 33 on page 9
So would you like some imaginary tulips as well

[Redleg]

I didn't see a United Nations representive in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Iraq. THe General in charge was flying the United States Flag over his headquarters - not a UN flag.

See earlier post Red~:rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want - it does not change the fact that the mission was commanded under the Flag of the United States not the United Nations



But I would wager I have a few more facts in this matter then yourself. First hand experience being one of them.


Yeah and I stood outside the Palace de Bourbon once so I know all there is to know about French politics:shrug:
Unless of course you mean that you were at the negotiating table drawing up the agreements and engaging in the diplomatic horse trading . Wow that would be some leap wouldn't it , Artillery officer becomes international military statesman , forget Donkey Oaty , how about Napoleon as a new name .~D ~D ~D

Never said I drew up the document - but I have seen a copy and noticed who signed it and with what signature block. It didn't say United Nations.



It shows how the United Nations lacks authority, since it has no soverignty.

Imaginary windmills again Red , who has said the UN is soveriegn ?


Authority requires the ability to enforce its decisions - only soveriegn nations as a form of government currently have the ability to enforce the government's decision. The United Nations does not have any ability to insure its decisions are honored - no accountablity, no responsiblity, means you can not have authority.



soveriegn states can do what they decide on - regardless if it has the consenus of the United Nations or not.

Ah yes a fundamental flaw in the UN , especially concerning the veto to afforded permanant members of the SC , and the relevance is ????

The point is the same as above - no ability to enforce its decisions, no means of ensuring accountablity, and no means of ensuring responsiblity means the agency has no authority.



Besides which if the UN achieves consensus then the soveriegn state has to face the verdict of the UN , be that sanctions , inspection or any means neccesary .

And who is going to insure that this happens - not the United Nations has it has been shown over and over again.



The cease fire agreement signed between nations is still valid - Resolution 687 did not void the ceasefire. At most it reinforced the ceasefire agreement.
No it isn't , If I wrote a contract to buy all the oranges you could produce at $100 /ton , then wrote another contract stipulating that all of the oranges must be of a merchandisable quality , shall be delivered free to my warehouse , your production and delivery must not exceed 100,000 tons and all deliveries must be completed by the 10th month in a 12 month period then the earlier cntract is completely void Red , just as the earleir Iraqi agreement is .

Again it does not make the negoatated cease fire void - its not a supply contract for a material goods - its a treaty between nations.



It doesn't just reinforce the earlier agreement it completely redefines it and makes it null and void unless the articles and clauses in the first contract are identical to the second one , which they are not .

Actually the Resolution 687 is based completely upon the negoated cease fire - the treaty is still valid.

[Tribesman]

Roll your eyes all you want - it does not change the fact that the mission was commanded under the Flag of the United States not the United Nations

~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: There you go Red does that help ? Command and composition do not matter , they are irrelevant . Every soldier and every commander could have been Somalian for all that it matters . The issue is authority , the coilition was mandated under the authority of the UN , simple as that .

Authority requires the ability to enforce its decisions
Was Iraq ejected from Kuwait ?

only soveriegn nations as a form of government currently have the ability to enforce the government's decision.
Errr.... Is the UN a government ? No , then what are you on about ?

The United Nations does not have any ability to insure its decisions are honored - no accountablity, no responsiblity, means you can not have authority.

It does if enough of the member states agree and none of the 5 veto it , as it was in this case , so yes it does have authority when it has authority .

And who is going to insure that this happens - not the United Nations has it has been shown over and over again.

Thats really funny considering we are talking about an event where it did work

Actually the Resolution 687 is based completely upon the negoated cease fire - the treaty is still valid.
Check the wording Red , the initial ceasefire was not formalised , that means it is invalid once a formalised document is produced , which was 687 . Which is why references since then refer to 687 not to the Safwon document . Or would you like to try and trawl through all the multitude of speeches and articles by your government , or any other for that matter , and try to find any which cite the previous document instead of the later one ?
As I offered to Gawain , would you like dozens of examples where an initial ceasefire has been replaced by a full formal ceasefire ?

[Xiahou]

Never said I drew up the document - but I have seen a copy and noticed who signed it and with what signature block. It didn't say United Nations.Zing! And that as they say, is that. ~D

The really amusing thing is that even if I were to cede Tribesman's misguided view of 687 it would still be immaterial since Iraq was later found in breach of it anyhow. So even if you subscribe to his "UN model" (I dont), it really doesnt make a lick of difference- even if 687 was a legitimate cease-fire agreement. ~;)


Command and composition do not matter , they are irrelevant . Every soldier and every commander could have been Somalian for all that it matters . The issue is authority , the coilition was mandated under the authority of the UN , simple as that .
Yeah, actually it does matter. If Somali troops and commanders had organized and fought the war it would've been a Somali operation. Had the Somali forces kept fighting beyond the UN goals, the UN couldve done nothing to stop them- it can give it's blessing or condemnation, but that's all it is.

[Tribesman]

Zing! And that as they say, is that
Oh zingadedingdingzing !!!! Red has seen a copy of a redundant document .~:eek:
thats amazing .~:confused:

[Xiahou]

Why am I still even debating this with you anyhow? You've never proven anything- instead you make cute comments or take cheapshots (forum rules anyone?). There's no point in continuing this- it'd be easier(and more productive) to explain algebra to my dog. I'm done- troll someone else.

[Tribesman]

Why am I still even debating this with you anyhow? You've never proven anything- instead you make cute comments or take cheapshots (forum rules anyone?). There's no point in continuing this- it'd be easier(and more productive) to explain algebra to my dog. I'm done- troll someone else.
Ahhhhh poor Xiahou , in case you didn't notice , I don't have to prove anything , all the proof you need is in the wording of the resolutions and the speeches by your own leaders .
Oh but that proof doesn't agree with your stance does it , is that why you have had enough~:handball:

[Redleg]

Roll your eyes all you want - it does not change the fact that the mission was commanded under the Flag of the United States not the United Nations
~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: There you go Red does that help ? Command and composition do not matter , they are irrelevant . Every soldier and every commander could have been Somalian for all that it matters . The issue is authority , the coilition was mandated under the authority of the UN , simple as that .


You might want to go tell that to the North Korean's - they do not negotate their cease fire nor the attempts for a Peace Treaty with the United Nations - now do they. Presedence has been set. The United Nations mandate does not prevent individual nations from doing what serves their interests.


[quote]
Authority requires the ability to enforce its decisions
Was Iraq ejected from Kuwait ?


By a collation of nations - not by the United Nations.



only soveriegn nations as a form of government currently have the ability to enforce the government's decision.
Errr.... Is the UN a government ? No , then what are you on about ?


So does the United Nations have authority - you have answered your own question.



The United Nations does not have any ability to insure its decisions are honored - no accountablity, no responsiblity, means you can not have authority.

It does if enough of the member states agree and none of the 5 veto it , as it was in this case , so yes it does have authority when it has authority .


Again does the United Nations have the ability to enforce its decisions?



And who is going to insure that this happens - not the United Nations has it has been shown over and over again.

Thats really funny considering we are talking about an event where it did work

Really now - were the Resolutions passed by the United Nations concerning Iraq enforced - specifically all of the articles of Resolution 687?



Actually the Resolution 687 is based completely upon the negoated cease fire - the treaty is still valid.
Check the wording Red , the initial ceasefire was not formalised , that means it is invalid once a formalised document is produced , which was 687 . Which is why references since then refer to 687 not to the Safwon document . Or would you like to try and trawl through all the multitude of speeches and articles by your government , or any other for that matter , and try to find any which cite the previous document instead of the later one ?

Again Resolution 687 was based upon the negotated and signed cease fire treaty signed at Safwon - the point is valid, the treaty is valid. You can disagree with me all you want - it doesn't change the fact that the conditions of the cease fire treaty were not fulfilled.



As I offered to Gawain , would you like dozens of examples where an initial ceasefire has been replaced by a full formal ceasefire ?

Try - use North Korea as an examble.

[Tribesman]

Again Resolution 687 was based upon the negotated and signed cease fire treaty signed at Safwon - the point is valid, the treaty is valid.
Which treaty , the original one or the one that replaced it ?
Errrrr.... that would be the latter wouldn't it .
it doesn't change the fact that the conditions of the cease fire treaty were not fulfilled.

And the price of cheese is ? oh you are trying to change direction ..OK which conditions of which treaty , the redundant one or the new one ?

By a collation of nations - not by the United Nations.

Try and write this Red , you can type as slow as you want to make sure you don't miss anything out .....
By a coilition of nations acting under UN mandate.....
do you think you can manage that ~;)

So does the United Nations have authority
you have answered your own question.

Windmills Red you are defining authority as only belonging to nations then saying that the UN isn't a nation so it doesn't have the authority of a nation . Imaginary windmills Donkey , mount up and :charge: ~D ~D ~D

You might want to go tell that to the North Korean's
Oh yeah and the UN cannot impose its conditions eh , so do tell , how many decades of negotiations , how many violations of the terms and conditions , and what do you have , a highly militarised very expensive stalemate .

Try - use North Korea as an examble.
Well I was thinking of starting with WWI then moving on , that would be more interesting due to the number of different ceasefires and peace treaties and the various governments and countries that came and went with that conflict

[Tribesman]

You might want to go tell that to the North Korean's - they do not negotate their cease fire nor the attempts for a Peace Treaty with the United Nations - now do they. Presedence has been set.
Oh dear Redleg , you really have made a booboo havn't you , would you like to talk about authority and prescedence ?
I wonder what this document is and I wonder what words it uses ~D ~D ~D

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html

[Redleg]

Again Resolution 687 was based upon the negotated and signed cease fire treaty signed at Safwon - the point is valid, the treaty is valid.
Which treaty , the original one or the one that replaced it ?
Errrrr.... that would be the latter wouldn't it .

The cease fire in March 1990 was a ceasefire treaty - Resolution 687 is a UN resolution based upon that ceasefire treaty. Resolution 687 is not a ceasefire treaty - it is something esle.



it doesn't change the fact that the conditions of the cease fire treaty were not fulfilled.

And the price of cheese is ? oh you are trying to change direction ..OK which conditions of which treaty , the redundant one or the new one ?


The orginial conditions were never meet.



By a collation of nations - not by the United Nations.

Try and write this Red , you can type as slow as you want to make sure you don't miss anything out .....
By a coilition of nations acting under UN mandate.....
do you think you can manage that ~;)

Bluster is all that is - again it distracts from your point - not mine.





So does the United Nations have authority
you have answered your own question.

Windmills Red you are defining authority as only belonging to nations then saying that the UN isn't a nation so it doesn't have the authority of a nation . Imaginary windmills Donkey , mount up and :charge: ~D ~D ~D

Not at all - to have authority the agency must have the ability to enforce its decisions. Again namecalling and bluster does not equate to a discussion.



You might want to go tell that to the North Korean's
Oh yeah and the UN cannot impose its conditions eh , so do tell , how many decades of negotiations , how many violations of the terms and conditions , and what do you have , a highly militarised very expensive stalemate .

Again North Korea goes to show that the United Nations has no authority and no ability to enforce what it attempts to mandate.




Try - use North Korea as an examble.
Well I was thinking of starting with WWI then moving on , that would be more interesting due to the number of different ceasefires and peace treaties and the various governments and countries that came and went with that conflict

North Korea is one that is primarily equilivant to the discussion about Iraq. Both were United Nations sanctioned actions - both ended in the same type of ceasefire treaty.

[Redleg]

You might want to go tell that to the North Korean's - they do not negotate their cease fire nor the attempts for a Peace Treaty with the United Nations - now do they. Presedence has been set.
Oh dear Redleg , you really have made a booboo havn't you , would you like to talk about authority and prescedence ?
I wonder what this document is and I wonder what words it uses ~D ~D ~D

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html

No error at all - I wouldn't of mentioned it if I didn't know part of the answer already.

You have answered part of it - but you have not answered the intitial question completely.

Now look at what conditions are today. Who does North Korea and China negotate for a peace treaty with - what agency is strangly absent from said negotations?


At the insistence of Pyongyang, the U.S. Department of State is currently negotiating an exclusive peace treaty between the United States and North Korea that would replace the existing armistice. Although peace on the Peninsula is long overdue, this is the wrong way to close the book on one of the epoch-defining events of the 20th century. A peace treaty solely between the United States and North Korea would cloud the legacy of those 37,895 soldiers who fought and died together under the U.N. flag. Although a bilateral treaty may be politically expedient, history should not be ignored for purposes of convenience.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/EM748.cfm

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This is ridiculous. Did the UN call for a coalition to go in and liberate Kuwait? Did the UN sign up these nations? After the war started could the UN tell the coalition to stop and would they have had to listen? The answer to these questions is no. The UN merely sanctioned the war. It has no power to declare war and no army to fight it with. Tribseman this is the worst ive ever seen you look on these boards. Your position is hopeless.


UN or no UN the same results would have happened. They merely said it was ok by them.

[Redleg]

This is ridiculous. Did the UN call for a coalition to go in and liberate Kuwait? Did the UN sign up these nations? After the war started could the UN tell the coalition to stop and would they have had to listen? The answer to these questions is no. The UN merely sanctioned the war. It has no power to declare war and no army to fight it with. Tribseman this is the worst ive ever seen you look on these boards. Your position is hopeless.


UN or no UN the same results would have happened. They merely said it was ok by them.


A United Nations consensus is similiar to asking your over 18 years of age girlfriend's parents permission to marry their daughter - nice to have but not necessary.

[Tribesman]

How is the document signed Red , you have gone on and on that the US signs as the US and only as the US , as it is only the US that has authority as it is a country and the UN doesn't have any authority .
What is the title given to the US General Red ? under whose authority does he appear ?

And strangely you also post an article from a conservative think tank which states the legacy of those 37,895 soldiers who fought and died together under the U.N. flag.
I thought you claimed that no one served under a UN flag , as the UN doesn't have the authority .

And note this ..... Although a bilateral treaty may be politically expedient, history should not be ignored for purposes of convenience.
Now then , a bi-lateral treaty , is this bi-lateral treaty from before or after the ceasefire ? ....After unless they are using a very strange calendar .
So America negotiates now not under the auspices of the UN ceasefire but under the bi-lateral mutual defense pact , the pact in this case is outside of the remit of the UN treaty , but the bi-lateral treaty does not supercede the earlier ceasefire and America (as are other members) is still bound by the UN document .
In the case of the Safwon agreement , that was under the auspices of the UN and was replaced by a later document under those auspices .
As the US is not acting under a seperate bi-lateral treaty in the Iraq case , neither can it act under the UN treaty . It is acting as a soveriegn nation in its own right , which means it is in violation of the Hague conventions .
It attempts to claim that it is acting under the terms of the UN treaty , but it isn't , and it attempts to claim that a redundant document gives it the right , which it doesn't as it is redundant .
So ... a violation of the Hague conventions ....would that be a war crime then?~;)

Bluster is all that is - again it distracts from your point - not mine.
~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:
Since my whole point has been that the treaty was under the auspices of the UN and the coilition were under the mandated authority of the UN then what are you on about Red ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

America (as are other members) is still bound by the UN document .

No one is bound to anything by the UN. Its a treaty. Treaties are made to be broken. Its not against the law. Once more in reality the UN has no authority of its own. The US is indeed a soveriegn nation and the UN has no authority over it. To tell the truth its become a joke. Time to rid ourselves of this corrupt organization and get a real UN made up of the free nations of the world.

[Redleg]

How is the document signed Red , you have gone on and on that the US signs as the US and only as the US , as it is only the US that has authority as it is a country and the UN doesn't have any authority .
What is the title given to the US General Red ? under whose authority does he appear ?

And strangely you also post an article from a conservative think tank which states the legacy of those 37,895 soldiers who fought and died together under the U.N. flag.
I thought you claimed that no one served under a UN flag , as the UN doesn't have the authority .

Correct the United Nations has no authority - North Korea recongizes that and is pursueing peace only with the United States.



And note this ..... Although a bilateral treaty may be politically expedient, history should not be ignored for purposes of convenience.
Now then , a bi-lateral treaty , is this bi-lateral treaty from before or after the ceasefire ? ....After unless they are using a very strange calendar .
So America negotiates now not under the auspices of the UN ceasefire but under the bi-lateral mutual defense pact , the pact in this case is outside of the remit of the UN treaty , but the bi-lateral treaty does not supercede the earlier ceasefire and America (as are other members) is still bound by the UN document .

Getting close - however you have missed the presedence. The United Nations does not prevent nations have acting on their own interests. If the United Nations had authority - no nation could negotated seperate settelements after particpating in a United Nations task.



In the case of the Safwon agreement , that was under the auspices of the UN and was replaced by a later document under those auspices .
As the US is not acting under a seperate bi-lateral treaty in the Iraq case , neither can it act under the UN treaty . It is acting as a soveriegn nation in its own right , which means it is in violation of the Hague conventions .

Nope you are incorrect - as a signature nation of the cease fire the United States has the right under the Hague Conventions to return to hostilities. The United Nations charter nor the United Resolutions supercede a nations soverignity.



It attempts to claim that it is acting under the terms of the UN treaty , but it isn't , and it attempts to claim that a redundant document gives it the right , which it doesn't as it is redundant .

The cease fire is not a redundant document - you might want to check what redundand means. The redundant document is the United Nations Resolution 687.




So ... a violation of the Hague conventions ....would that be a war crime then?~;)

You have to prove that the United States violated the Hague Conventions in regards of initiating offense actions against Iraq for its violation of the Cease Fire.



Bluster is all that is - again it distracts from your point - not mine.
~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:
Since my whole point has been that the treaty was under the auspices of the UN and the coilition were under the mandated authority of the UN then what are you on about Red ?

Figure it out Tribesman, your a smart guy. How many times have you used bluster and name calling in this thread alone.

The whole point is that the United Nations does not supercede the national authority of any nation. Once a nation committs to warfare even under the mandate of the United Nations - the United Nations does not prevent that nation from returning to warfare if the opposing side does not meet the conditions of the cease fire that all warring parties agreed to.

North Korea and the United States having seperate peace talks outside of the United Nations is proof to that point.

[Tribesman]

North Korea recongizes that and is pursueing peace only with the United States.

Incorrect The UN terms and condition still stand , there are other negotiations taking place under the auspices of a later pact to which the UN is not a party but that is irrelevant as that is a bi-lateral treaty not a UN one .
You are trying to imply that they are one and the same , which they are not , so it is a smokescreen to hide the basic faults in your position .

however you have missed the presedence
What prescdence Red , you have used an event to try to back up your claims . The documentary evidence shows that your claims are entirely false on several counts .
as a signature nation of the cease fire the United States has the right under the Hague Conventions to return to hostilities. The United Nations charter nor the United Resolutions supercede a nations soverignity.

No since its signature was isued under the auspices of the UN mandate , if you accept the authority of that mandate , as they did , and work within the terms and conditions set by that mandate , then you are bound by your agreement to it . So is there a seperate bi-lateral treaty in this case under whose terms it can work ....NO .
The United Nations charter nor the United Resolutions supercede a nations soverignity.

Windmills again Red , has anyone made that claim ?

Once a nation committs to warfare even under the mandate of the United Nations - the United Nations does not prevent that nation from returning to warfare if the opposing side does not meet the conditions of the cease fire that all warring parties agreed to.

But it cannot use the treaty as the US has tried to do , it tried and it failed , since it cannot cite that treaty then it is in violation of the Hague conventions .
North Korea and the United States having seperate peace talks outside of the United Nations is proof to that point
No Red that is proof that seperate treaties outside of the remit of the UN can be acted upon . In the case we are talking about there is no seperate treaty outside of that remit that covers the situation is there .

Its a treaty. Treaties are made to be broken. Its not against the law.
OMG what stunning wisdom Gawain , well done...~:pat: more medication for the patient please nurse he is babbling nonsense again :nurse: .....:fainting: thats better , perhaps he will return when he is more coherent .

[Redleg]

North Korea recongizes that and is pursueing peace only with the United States.

Incorrect The UN terms and condition still stand , there are other negotiations taking place under the auspices of a later pact to which the UN is not a party but that is irrelevant as that is a bi-lateral treaty not a UN one .

Not at all - its a peace treaty negotation dealing from the actual conflict - its all part of the same package.



You are trying to imply that they are one and the same , which they are not , so it is a smokescreen to hide the basic faults in your position .


Not implying they are one and the same - I have demonstrated that a confict where the defense and subsequent cease fire agreed upon by all parties of the conflict under the banner of the United Nations has broken down to seperate peace negotations by four of the major parties in the conflict - even more so by two of the primariy parities of that conflict. If a nation can do this for peace negatotions - it can also do it for war.



however you have missed the presedence
What prescdence Red , you have used an event to try to back up your claims . The documentary evidence shows that your claims are entirely false on several counts.

Not at all - Is a seperate peace treaty being pursued by North Korea with the United States? Is not then you can same my statements are entirely false - but since North Korea is attempting to negotate a seperate peace on its own, when the statements are not false.




as a signature nation of the cease fire the United States has the right under the Hague Conventions to return to hostilities. The United Nations charter nor the United Resolutions supercede a nations soverignity.

No since its signature was isued under the auspices of the UN mandate , if you accept the authority of that mandate , as they did , and work within the terms and conditions set by that mandate , then you are bound by your agreement to it . So is there a seperate bi-lateral treaty in this case under whose terms it can work ....NO .

Again history shows that parties do indeed do things outside of the UN mandate, and its perfectably acceptable.

However here your arguement shows the fundmental failure of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions. Again without the ability to enforce the decision - there is no authority. To have authority the agency in question must also have accountablity and responsibility.



The United Nations charter nor the United Resolutions supercede a nations soverignity.

Windmills again Red , has anyone made that claim ?

Again with the bluster.

Not at all - the United States is a signature member of the United Nations, it was also a signature party in the initial conflict with Iraq. THe United Nations does not supercede the ability of the United States to decide which treaties it will enforce and which ones it will not.



Once a nation committs to warfare even under the mandate of the United Nations - the United Nations does not prevent that nation from returning to warfare if the opposing side does not meet the conditions of the cease fire that all warring parties agreed to.

But it cannot use the treaty as the US has tried to do , it tried and it failed , since it cannot cite that treaty then it is in violation of the Hague conventions .

Not at all - the United States agreed to the initial terms of the cease fire and even the resolutions - Iraq broke the conditions of the cease fire. Under the Hague Conventions any of the warring parties can re-initiate hostilities if the cease fire conditions are broken. The Hague Conventions does not apply to the United Nations or its Resolutions since it is not a Nation State that has the ability to wage war.



North Korea and the United States having seperate peace talks outside of the United Nations is proof to that point
No Red that is proof that seperate treaties outside of the remit of the UN can be acted upon . In the case we are talking about there is no seperate treaty outside of that remit that covers the situation is there .

And there you go - the cease fire signed in Sufwon is a seperate treaty and therefor the United States is allowed to act on its own accord without the United Nations consenus if it so desires.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

in a related thing,

look how mad the Dem's are at Lieberman:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051210/ap_on_go_co/lieberman_dems

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its a treaty. Treaties are made to be broken. Its not against the law.
OMG what stunning wisdom Gawain , well done... more medication for the patient please nurse he is babbling nonsense again ..... thats better , perhaps he will return when he is more coherent

More bluster and insults to mask your silly notions. Most rteaties winfd up either broken or recended sooner or later. The UN is a treaty bewtween nations and congress dictates what rules we follow and what treatie we will honor not the UN. No one on these boards has agreed with you. You are the one chasing windmills here.

[Tribesman]

Not at all - its a peace treaty negotation dealing from the actual conflict - its all part of the same package.


Don't be silly Red , it is negotiations by parties to a bi-lateral agreement that only came into existance months after the ceasefire and its conditions had been set out and agreed upon .
If you think it is the same or cancel things out then why not ask your generals to move 50,000 troops to S.Korea tonight under your bi-lateral pact .

have demonstrated that a confict where the defense and subsequent cease fire agreed upon by all parties of the conflict under the banner of the United Nations has broken down to seperate peace negotations by four of the major parties in the conflict
No you have demonstrated that a seperate negotiation can be implemented under a seperate obligation .

And there you go - the cease fire signed in Sufwon is a seperate treaty and therefor the United States is allowed to act on its own accord without the United Nations consenus if it so desires.
No it isn't .

28/2 coilition declares a ceasefire as its mandated obligations have been achieved
2/3 UN passes 686 setting preliminary ceasefire conditions
3/3 Iraq agrees to preliminary ceasefire conditions .
1/4 UN passes 687 setting formal ceasefire conditions....Iraq accepts formal ceasefire conditions .
So where is this seperate treaty ? it doesn't exist .
Oh I forgot didn't I , when a US commander in a mandated operation signs anything he only signs it as a US officer doesn't he:san_wink:

Compare to
6/53UN and N.K/china agree to truce and ceasefire conditions/negotiations
The conditions still stand but the negotiations go nowhere
11/53 US and S.Korea sign bi lateral pact and start seperate negotiations
As with the UN negotiations they go nowhere

[Tribesman]

Ah ..he has returned , are you feeling any better yet ?
You are the one chasing windmills here.

Yes Gawain ,:san_rolleyes: it is a discussion that has for a little while been focusing on treaties .
Since you have a strange notion that there is no such thing and if there was it is only there to be broken and breaking treaties is not unlawful then do you actually have anything to say ?
Because by your "reasoning" the Iraqis never did anything wrong did they , as treaties are meant to be broken aren't they , thats what they are there for , it is the law treaties must be broken .:san_shocked:
BTW any luck with finding any info on the Israel/Iraq peace treaty yet:san_grin:

[Tribesman]

in a related thing,

Interesting Taffy , but then again they are not very good a putting forward a united front on anything much are they , I suppose that is one of the beauties of democracy , the differences of opinion .
If everyone was singing from exactly the same policy sheet , then either it would have to be an absolutely infallible policy , or they would all have to be brain dead morons .

[Redleg]

Not at all - its a peace treaty negotation dealing from the actual conflict - its all part of the same package.


Don't be silly Red , it is negotiations by parties to a bi-lateral agreement that only came into existance months after the ceasefire and its conditions had been set out and agreed upon .
If you think it is the same or cancel things out then why not ask your generals to move 50,000 troops to S.Korea tonight under your bi-lateral pact .


We used to all the time - Team Spirit and UFL are two exercises that used to happen in Korea every year until 1995.

Again it goes to show that nations can act against or with each other even with something from the United Nations being in place. The negotations between the United States and North Korea stem from the Korean War - which was done under the United Nations banner - however neither nation uses the United Nations to negotate with each other now do they.




have demonstrated that a confict where the defense and subsequent cease fire agreed upon by all parties of the conflict under the banner of the United Nations has broken down to seperate peace negotations by four of the major parties in the conflict
No you have demonstrated that a seperate negotiation can be implemented under a seperate obligation .


You are almost correct - I have demonstrated that a seperated negotiation can be implemented and accomplished in spite of an the United Nations. Niether nation uses the United Nations for its negotations for peace - when like the document stated it was a United Nations armistice. Technically the United Nations is still at war with North Korea along with all the other warring parties of that conflict.



And there you go - the cease fire signed in Sufwon is a seperate treaty and therefor the United States is allowed to act on its own accord without the United Nations consenus if it so desires.
No it isn't .

28/2 coilition declares a ceasefire as its mandated obligations have been achieved
2/3 UN passes 686 setting preliminary ceasefire conditions
3/3 Iraq agrees to preliminary ceasefire conditions .
1/4 UN passes 687 setting formal ceasefire conditions....Iraq accepts formal ceasefire conditions .
So where is this seperate treaty ? it doesn't exist .
Oh I forgot didn't I , when a US commander in a mandated operation signs anything he only signs it as a US officer doesn't he:san_wink:



Yes an United States Representives sign for the United States even if he is also doing it as part of the United Nations Mission. Just like the Representives at the United Nations commit their nations to the resolutions that the United Nations as a body never enforce. The United Nations is not a governing body - it has no authority other then what is granted to it by the nations involved. Iraq failed to honor its committments of the Cease Fire and the subsequent resolution, the United States has the ability to act upon that failure of Iraq's any way the United States so choses - not just the way the United Nations wanted it to be settled.


The U.S.-led coalition began a massive air war to destroy Iraq's forces and military and civil infrastructure. Iraq called for terrorist attacks against the coalition and launched Scud missiles at Israel (in an unsuccessful attempt to widen the war and break up the coalition) and at Saudi Arabia. The main coalition forces invaded Kuwait and S Iraq on Feb. 24 and, over the next four days, encircled and defeated the Iraqis and liberated Kuwait. When U.S. President George H. W. Bush declared a cease-fire on Feb. 28, most of the Iraqi forces in Kuwait had either surrendered or fled.

Again the United Nations does not supercede the ability for any nation to act in regards to a treaty that that nation has agreed upon.




Compare to
6/53UN and N.K/china agree to truce and ceasefire conditions/negotiations
The conditions still stand but the negotiations go nowhere
11/53 US and S.Korea sign bi lateral pact and start seperate negotiations
As with the UN negotiations they go nowhere

Oh your getting the picture. The United Nations has no authority. It can only provide an international consensus of action.

Shall we add Bosina to the discussion concerning the failures of the United Nations to act on its charter.

Another examble how the United States forced the United Nations to do its job when it failed, and here we did the right thing in spite of the United Nations.


Aided by Serbian guerrillas in Croatia, Milosevic's forces invaded in July 1991 to 'protect' the Serbian minority.

The response of the international community was limited. The U.S. under President George Bush chose not to get involved militarily, but instead recognized the independence of both Slovenia and Croatia. An arms embargo was imposed for all of the former Yugoslavia by the United Nations. However, the Serbs under Milosevic were already the best armed force and thus maintained a big military advantage.

By the end of 1991, a U.S.-sponsored cease-fire agreement was brokered between the Serbs and Croats fighting in Croatia.

The actions of the Serbs were labeled as 'ethnic cleansing,' a name which quickly took hold among the international media.

Despite media reports of the secret camps, the mass killings, as well as the destruction of Muslim mosques and historic architecture in Bosnia, the world community remained mostly indifferent. The U.N. responded by imposing economic sanctions on Serbia and also deployed its troops to protect the distribution of food and medicine to dispossessed Muslims. But the U.N. strictly prohibited its troops from interfering militarily against the Serbs. Thus they remained steadfastly neutral no matter how bad the situation became.

Throughout 1993, confident that the U.N., United States and the European Community would not take militarily action, Serbs in Bosnia freely committed genocide against Muslims.

On February 6, 1994, the world's attention turned completely to Bosnia as a marketplace in Sarajevo was struck by a Serb mortar shell killing 68 persons and wounding nearly 200. Sights and sounds of the bloody carnage were broadcast globally by the international news media and soon resulted in calls for military intervention against the Serbs.

The U.S. under its new President, Bill Clinton, who had promised during his election campaign in 1992 to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, now issued an ultimatum through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) demanding that the Serbs withdraw their artillery from Sarajevo. The Serbs quickly complied and a NATO-imposed cease-fire in Sarajevo was declared.


On August 30, 1995, effective military intervention finally began as the U.S. led a massive NATO bombing campaign in response to the killings at Srebrenica, targeting Serbian artillery positions throughout Bosnia. The bombardment continued into October. Serb forces also lost ground to Bosnian Muslims who had received arms shipments from the Islamic world. As a result, half of Bosnia was eventually retaken by Muslim-Croat troops.

Faced with the heavy NATO bombardment and a string of ground losses to the Muslim-Croat alliance, Serb leader Milosevic was now ready to talk peace. On November 1, 1995, leaders of the warring factions including Milosevic and Tudjman traveled to the U.S. for peace talks at Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Ohio.


http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/bosnia.htm

All of this in spite of the failure of the United Nations.

We can add Kosovo to the discussion also - if you chose - both Bosnia and Kosovo show the failures of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions.

[Tribesman]

We used to all the time - Team Spirit and UFL are two exercises that used to happen in Korea every year until 1995.

Look at the words I used Red , those words are chosen for a purpose .
If you think it is the same or cancel things out then why not ask your generals to move 50,000 troops to S.Korea tonight under your bi-lateral pact .

Now can you identify the clause to which I refer , and why your generals cannot move 50,000 troops to Korea tonight:san_wink:

Technically the United Nations is still at war with North Korea along with all the other warring parties of that conflict.

Hold up Red , didn't someone claim that the UN couldn't be at war , technically or otherwise ?
And wouldn't those 14 members of the coilition only be at war under the auspices of the UN mandate , same as Iraq . Unless of course N.Korea attacked and the US could then act under its bi-lateral treaty obligations .
Niether nation uses the United Nations for its negotations for peace
Correct since they are operating under the auspices of another sperate agreement , where is the seperate agreement in Iraq that is not under the auspice of the UN mandate ? There isn't one is there .

Shall we add Bosina to the discussion concerning the failures of the United Nations to act on its charter.

Are you trying to get further from the issue Red ? Is that because some basic props of your arguement are crumbling away ? Would that be a thing called misdirection:san_wink:

the United States has the ability to act upon that failure of Iraq's any way the United States so choses - not just the way the United Nations wanted it to be settled.

No since it agreed to the authority of the UN in this matter and was acting under the authority of the UN , that the UN is a failure is irrelevant .
If it does not wish to confer the authority on the UN then that is its soveriegn right , but that means that it cannot use the ceasefire that was established under UN authority as a reason .
It tried to , but it failed for many reasons .
It agreed to the soveriegnty of Iraq , and its regime (????) Therefore its violation of that soveriegnty and its aims of changing the regime through military force are a violation of the Hague conventions . It cannot claim legitimacy through the ceasefire agreement as that would mean that it would have to be a mandated action by the body under whose authority the ceasefire exists , that legitimacy was not given was it .

Interesting that you bolded this part of the passage you posted
When U.S. President George H. W. Bush declared a cease-fire on Feb. 28
And what is the relevance of that ? what documentation between parties was signed in that address ? what conditions were legally stipuated in his speech ?.....none .
The preliminary agreement was put forward as I stated in the earlier post , and agreed to on the dates I stated . But hey you were there , you should know:san_wink:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Now can you identify the clause to which I refer , and why your generals cannot move 50,000 troops to Korea tonight

Find all the clauses you like. You can even use the Santa Clause if you like as he has about the same amount of authority over our troops as the UN does. The only things stopping us are the will to do it in the first place and I dont think we have the transport capicity.

[Redleg]

We used to all the time - Team Spirit and UFL are two exercises that used to happen in Korea every year until 1995.

Look at the words I used Red , those words are chosen for a purpose .
If you think it is the same or cancel things out then why not ask your generals to move 50,000 troops to S.Korea tonight under your bi-lateral pact .

Now can you identify the clause to which I refer , and why your generals cannot move 50,000 troops to Korea tonight:san_wink:

Go ahead and show it, if it exists. The armistice allows certain things - which again have been changed because of agreements worked out between the United States and North Korea. All these agreements are still based upon the initial Armistice.



Technically the United Nations is still at war with North Korea along with all the other warring parties of that conflict.

Hold up Red , didn't someone claim that the UN couldn't be at war , technically or otherwise ?

I did misspeak in the above quote - only one nation is fighting a declared war against North Korea. The rest are aiding South Korea in its war against North Korea. However that doesn't distract from my mine point - just a historical blunder.



And wouldn't those 14 members of the coilition only be at war under the auspices of the UN mandate , same as Iraq .

Not at all - one of those nations is just south of the DMZ.



Unless of course N.Korea attacked and the US could then act under its bi-lateral treaty obligations .

The bi-lateral treaty stems from the armistice - another examble that shows that nations can do what they decide to do - even with the United Nations having a part in the orginial committment.



Niether nation uses the United Nations for its negotations for peace
Correct since they are operating under the auspices of another sperate agreement , where is the seperate agreement in Iraq that is not under the auspice of the UN mandate ? There isn't one is there .

Your forgetting one thing - the United States never declared war on Korea, therefore everything done on the Korea Pensulia is part of the initial UN Security Council resolution


Instead of pressing for a congressional declaration of war, which he regarded as too alarmist and time-consuming when time was of the essence, Truman went to the United Nations for approval. Thanks to a temporary Soviet absence from the Security Council — the Soviets were boycotting the Security Council to protest the exclusion of People's Republic of China (PRC) from the UN — there would be no veto by Stalin. The (Nationalist controlled) Republic of China government held the Chinese seat. Without the Soviet and Chinese veto and with only Yugoslavia abstaining, the UN voted to aid South Korea on June 27. U.S. forces were eventually joined during the conflict by troops from fifteen other UN members: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Colombia, the Philippines, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Although American opinion was solidly behind the venture, Truman would later take harsh criticism for not obtaining a declaration of war from Congress before sending troops to Korea. Thus, "Truman's War" was said by some to have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the United States Constitution.

The United States is not at war with North Korea - technically its just North and South Korea at war. So again why does the North Korea only go to the United States to negotate a peace treaty? A bi-lateral treaty is not the reason.



Shall we add Bosina to the discussion concerning the failures of the United Nations to act on its charter.

Are you trying to get further from the issue Red ? Is that because some basic props of your arguement are crumbling away ? Would that be a thing called misdirection:san_wink:

Not at all - look at the resolution that the United Nations passed concerning Bosina - and what actually ended up happening. The United States acted upon its national interests in spite of an alreadly in place peacekeeping resolution in Bosina that failed.



the United States has the ability to act upon that failure of Iraq's any way the United States so choses - not just the way the United Nations wanted it to be settled.

No since it agreed to the authority of the UN in this matter and was acting under the authority of the UN , that the UN is a failure is irrelevant .
If it does not wish to confer the authority on the UN then that is its soveriegn right , but that means that it cannot use the ceasefire that was established under UN authority as a reason .

The ceasefire was ordered by whom? It wasn't the United Nations. The Ceasefire was agreed upon in 2 March between what nations - and it was not the United Nations?

But even if I was to cede that Resolution 687 supercedes the Ceasefire argreement signed in Sufwon - which I don't believe it does - your forgetting one major thing about the Hague Conventions and the right of nations to return to hostilities.

If a nation is in an armed conflict as part of an alliance and agrees upon the ceasefire conditions - and the ceasefire is broken by the opposing side - any nation within the alliance has the ability to resume hositilies wether the other nations do so or not.




Art. 36.
An armistice suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties. If its duration is not defined, the belligerent parties may resume operations at any time, provided always that the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon, in accordance with the terms of the armistice.

Art. 37.
An armistice may be general or local. The first suspends the military operations of the belligerent States everywhere; the second only between certain fractions of the belligerent armies and within a fixed radius.

Art. 38.
An armistice must be notified officially and in good time to the competent authorities and to the troops. Hostilities are suspended immediately after the notification, or on the date fixed.

Art. 39.
It rests with the Contracting Parties to settle, in the terms of the armistice, what communications may be held in the theatre of war with the inhabitants and between the inhabitants of one belligerent State and those of the other.

Art. 40.
Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostilities immediately.

Art. 41.
A violation of the terms of the armistice by private persons acting on their own initiative only entitles the injured party to demand the punishment of the offenders or, if necessary, compensation for the losses sustained.



The United Nations was not a belligerent party - the nations involved in the actual fighting were the belligerent parties. Each nation that fought has the ability to decide what it wants to do in regards to re-initiating hostilies when the armistice is broken by the opposing side. Once again the Korean War and its aftermath to present is an examble of just what I am speaking of.



It tried to , but it failed for many reasons .
It agreed to the soveriegnty of Iraq , and its regime (????) Therefore its violation of that soveriegnty and its aims of changing the regime through military force are a violation of the Hague conventions . It cannot claim legitimacy through the ceasefire agreement as that would mean that it would have to be a mandated action by the body under whose authority the ceasefire exists , that legitimacy was not given was it .

You might want to read the Hague Conventions in a little more detail, especially the bolded article. The Hague Conventions do indeed allow the United States to reiniate hostilies over violations of the cease fire - weither the arguement is based upon the Ceasefire signed on 2 March 1991, or Resolution 687. Or are you attempting to state that the United States was not one of the belligerent parties.

Because there was an authorization for the use of force by the United States Congress that shows that the United States was a belligerent party in conflict.

The actions of the United States in regards to the Ceasefire conditions is allowed under the Hague Conventions regardless which Ceasefire you wish to reference. Just by the very nature of being a party to the conflict.



Interesting that you bolded this part of the passage you posted
When U.S. President George H. W. Bush declared a cease-fire on Feb. 28
And what is the relevance of that ? what documentation between parties was signed in that address ? what conditions were legally stipuated in his speech ?.....none .
The preliminary agreement was put forward as I stated in the earlier post , and agreed to on the dates I stated . But hey you were there , you should know:san_wink:

The revelance is that it was not the United Nations that ordered and arranged the cease fire - it was the United States.

[Tribesman]

But even if I was to cede that Resolution 687 supercedes the Ceasefire argreement signed in Sufwon - which I don't believe it does
So even if you were to cede that the terms under 687 supercede the terms under 686 you.... errrr.... you what exactly ?

The Ceasefire was agreed upon in 2 March between what nations - and it was not the United Nations?


Oh dear Red , check the dates again .

Go ahead and show it, if it exists.
Do you doubt me Red :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
You know it exists don't you , is that just bluster .

The bi-lateral treaty stems from the armistice
No the bi-lateral agreement is a document assuring a policy of mutual defense beween two nations , it has nothing to do with the UN truce document .
Not at all - one of those nations is just south of the DMZ.

Yes , and despite its bi-lateral treaty its troop numbers and composition and movements have to comply with the terms set out in the ceasefire document , unless it wishes to violate that agreement , be that nation S.Korea or the US.

the United States never declared war on Korea, therefore everything done on the Korea Pensulia is part of the initial UN Security Council resolution

If it never declared war as the United States then it cannot act in this instance as if it had , it is under the auspice of the UN mandate .

Red you bold article 36 of the conventions , would you care to read it again , especially the last line .
The revelance is that it was not the United Nations that ordered and arranged the cease fire - it was the United States.
No , Bush made a statement that the mandated terms of the coilition had been achieved and they had ceased their advance , the UN representatives drafted and arranged a preliminary document to be agreed upon , then the drafted and arranged a formal document to be agreed upon . Nowhere is there a seperate document between the US and Iraq in this matter

Find all the clauses you like. You can even use the Santa Clause
Ah yes treaties don't have any legal standing do they Gawain , they only exist so they can be broken .
Nurse increase the dosage :nurse: :nurse:

[Redleg]

But even if I was to cede that Resolution 687 supercedes the Ceasefire argreement signed in Sufwon - which I don't believe it does
So even if you were to cede that the terms under 687 supercede the terms under 686 you.... errrr.... you what exactly ?

ITs easy enough to understand what I stated. Tsk Tsk.



The Ceasefire was agreed upon in 2 March between what nations - and it was not the United Nations?


Oh dear Red , check the dates again .


Tsk tsk - your not countering the arguement - your attempting bluster once again.



Go ahead and show it, if it exists.
Do you doubt me Red :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
You know it exists don't you , is that just bluster .


Again show it if it exists - you mentioned it - its your postion to prove not mine. Copying my terms is nothing but flattery.



The bi-lateral treaty stems from the armistice
No the bi-lateral agreement is a document assuring a policy of mutual defense beween two nations , it has nothing to do with the UN truce document .


Read what you just stated - the United States does not have a defense treaty with North Korea - it has a defense pack with South Korea. The negotations for peace are a result of the Korean War - not the defense pact.



Not at all - one of those nations is just south of the DMZ.

Yes , and despite its bi-lateral treaty its troop numbers and composition and movements have to comply with the terms set out in the ceasefire document , unless it wishes to violate that agreement , be that nation S.Korea or the US.


Notice what you stated here also - care to guess how many times Team Spirit and UFL happened and what it caused to happen to the armistice. All goes to show something about UN documents now doesn't.



the United States never declared war on Korea, therefore everything done on the Korea Pensulia is part of the initial UN Security Council resolution

If it never declared war as the United States then it cannot act in this instance as if it had , it is under the auspice of the UN mandate .

And your begining to see the point. A mandate of the United Nations has no authority, other then what the nations wish to grant it.
The United Nations does not negotate nor will North Korea negotate with the United Nations for peace.



Red you bold article 36 of the conventions , would you care to read it again , especially the last line .

So the United Nations was the only beligerent party?

Because that would be incorrect - the United Nations did not fight in the desert.



The revelance is that it was not the United Nations that ordered and arranged the cease fire - it was the United States.
No , Bush made a statement that the mandated terms of the coilition had been achieved and they had ceased their advance , the UN representatives drafted and arranged a preliminary document to be agreed upon , then the drafted and arranged a formal document to be agreed upon . Nowhere is there a seperate document between the US and Iraq in this matter


The ceasefire was between all nations involved in the operation. IT was signed by the United States amoung other and Iraq. What you are calling the preliminary document is the ceasefire agreement.


Its really not a hard thing to understand - the United Nations does not have any authority, it does not have the power to enforce its decision, it does not take the responsiblity to enforce its decisions, and it does not even accept the accountablity for its decisions.

Going to the United Nations for anything- to use the same analogy again - is like going to your over 18 years of age girl friend's parents to ask for her hand in marriage, nice to have but not necessary.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Find all the clauses you like. You can even use the Santa Clause
Ah yes treaties don't have any legal standing do they Gawain , they only exist so they can be broken .
Nurse increase the dosage

Well you seem to quite well medicated here. Tell me if the British hadnt honored their treaty to defend Poland would that have been ilegal? Who would punish them.? What court or body has the authority . Treaties are only good as long as both sides decide to honor them. Their not the same as the laws of a soverign nation, The US can withdraw from any treaty it likes with no legal ramifications. Same for every other nation on the face of the earth.

[Tribesman]

Again show it if it exists - you mentioned it - its your postion to prove not mine.
But Red I have already posted it havn't I , didn't you notice ?
It is back in#105 .

Notice what you stated here also - care to guess how many times Team Spirit and UFL happened and what it caused to happen to the armistice.
But in those cases it is done in compliance with the terms of the armistice Red .
Look again at the wording I used why your generals cannot move 50,000 troops to Korea tonight

ITs easy enough to understand what I stated.
Yes I understand that you do not like calling a document by its proper name do you , since it invalidates the point you are trying to make .

What you are calling the preliminary document is the ceasefire agreement.

No the preliminary ceasefire agreement is exactly what it says it is, and a formal ceasefire agreement is exactly what it says it is .
A formal agreement by the same parties over the same issue makes a preliminary one redundant .
your not countering the arguement - your attempting bluster once again.

Not at all , check the dates , member states apart from Iraq agreed to the terms on the 2nd , Iraq agreed to the terms on the 3rd .

Back to the last line of article 36 Red .
Where is there any term within any of the documents that allows for unitaleral resumption without approval of the body whose authority the document was produced under ?
There is none .
In exactly the same way as America can not legally justify its action under 1441 neither can it under 687 .... or as you are trying to do under 686 , which is redundant anyway (though you try and avoid using that title as you have a strange aversion to it) .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hows the medication going Tribesman.? I see it hasnt worn off yet. Come on reply to my post on treaties. Here Ill give you a little more meat to chew on.The UN has no independant legal standing (neither do the Hague Conventions). Both are at best treaties and can only be understood legally along those lines. Nothing the UN puts forward can trump the Constitution and/or the nation's necessary freedom of action. A couple simple judicial examples: Reid v. Covert. 1957, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." the Cherokee Tobacco 1871, "an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty." Chae Chan Ping v. U.S 1889.: "whilst it would always be a matter of the utmost gravity and delicacy to refuse to execute a treaty, the power to do so was prerogative, of which no nation could be deprived without deeply affecting its independence." these are three simple judicial illustrations of the point. An analytical cutting to the quick would be: all treaties are dependent on a ratifying authority to have any force. This necessarily means any treaty is beholden to that ratifying authority. In this case, that would be Congress as charged by the Constitution. Does that make sense? By stressing National sovereignty (which is what the Constitution and Congressional acts are all about) you can undercut any and all extra-national ties

[Tribesman]

Right Gawain so no treaty is valid and when America or any other nation says it is complying with a treaty then it isn't actually complying with a treaty , when Condi said the other day that they are bound and in compliance they were not bound and didn't have to be in compliance anyway , and America cannot claim that Iraq violated a treaty because it is only a treaty and Iraq does not have to comply with treaties as it is a nation .
Yeah riggght ..... Keep it up Gawain it is hilarious .

By stressing National sovereignty (which is what the Constitution and Congressional acts are all about) you can undercut any and all extra-national ties
But if you under cut and reject the treaty , you cannot use that treaty as a justification . If you cannot use the treaty as a justification then you are in violation of the Hague conventions , has America rejected that treaty as well ? :san_shocked: oh but that wouldn't matter as they would be bound by the earlier treaty , it says so in the conventions, oh but they cannot be bound can thay so that treaty goes out the window as well , luckily there is an earlier one to which any country which rejects the 2nd last one is also bound .
So have they passed a congressional act rejecting all these treaties ? No ...so what are you on about ?
Oh but they could couldn't they ....if they were really dumb:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:

[Redleg]

Again show it if it exists - you mentioned it - its your postion to prove not mine.
But Red I have already posted it havn't I , didn't you notice ?
It is back in#105 .

Noticed and its not proving the point in which you are wanting it to prove.



Notice what you stated here also - care to guess how many times Team Spirit and UFL happened and what it caused to happen to the armistice.
But in those cases it is done in compliance with the terms of the armistice Red .
Look again at the wording I used why your generals cannot move 50,000 troops to Korea tonight

Again they can if the resources are there - nothing in the armistice prevents joint training exercises from happening. Like I said Team Spirit and UFL were exambles of just that.



ITs easy enough to understand what I stated.
Yes I understand that you do not like calling a document by its proper name do you , since it invalidates the point you are trying to make .

Since when is a cease fire document not a cease fire document.



What you are calling the preliminary document is the ceasefire agreement.

No the preliminary ceasefire agreement is exactly what it says it is, and a formal ceasefire agreement is exactly what it says it is .
A formal agreement by the same parties over the same issue makes a preliminary one redundant .

Not at all - the second one is the redundant article - the first one is the primary article, which is what Resolution 687 is based upon.



your not countering the arguement - your attempting bluster once again.

Not at all , check the dates , member states apart from Iraq agreed to the terms on the 2nd , Iraq agreed to the terms on the 3rd .

Since the ceasefire was announced on the 28th of February, the ceasefire is a valid condition.



Back to the last line of article 36 Red .
Where is there any term within any of the documents that allows for unitaleral resumption without approval of the body whose authority the document was produced under ?
There is none .

And there is no statement that says that it is illegal either. It states clearly


An armistice suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties. If its duration is not defined, the belligerent parties may resume operations at any time, provided always that the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon, in accordance with the terms of the armistice.

Answer the question - was the United States a belligerent party in the operation? The answer provides the solution according the Hague Conventions.



In exactly the same way as America can not legally justify its action under 1441 neither can it under 687 .... or as you are trying to do under 686 , which is redundant anyway (though you try and avoid using that title as you have a strange aversion to it) .

Again the United States can indeed re-initated hostilites with Iraq for the violation of the ceasefire treaty or United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 by the simple reasoning that it was a belligerent party in the conflict - as Article 36 of the Hague Conventions clearly state. The only way that the United States could not is if it gave up its soverignity to the United Nations, which it hasn't.

The United Nations does not have the authority to wage war, nor can it direct a nation to wage war.


PS: (edit) Also waiting for you to explain the illegality of the United States going into Bosina against the initial desires of the United Nations. You know when President Clinton ordered NATO to intervene into the conflict without the express approval of the United Nations where their Peacekeeping Mandate that was not working.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Heres a new avatar for you Tribesman

http://gevorgart.com/prints_pic/400/10.jpg

:san_lipsrsealed:

[KafirChobee]

WTF? Korea? Movement of trooops? Etc, etc.,etc.

Carter, during his administration deminished the number of U.S. troops there in 1978 - by half. I always felt it was a mistake; but, he did it at the bequest of the ROK (Republic of Korea) government in their first attempts to normalize relations with their brothers to the north. It never had a damn thing to do with the UN.

Thing is, had Carter been re-elected? Who knows. Jimmy was trusted by the world (something Ronny never was) and his word meant something - truth, honesty, equality of minds rather than power. Regardless, it was Jimmy that drew the troops down in Korea - and elsewhere (forcing those nations to stand up - sorta like what Bushy says he's doing ... yuck yuck).

Still, I'm not sure having read all this what it has to do with Joe?

Joe, maybe he'll be the next Republican candidate for VP? God, I hope so.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Joe, maybe he'll be the next Republican candidate for VP? God, I hope so.


Even I wouldnt mind that :san_laugh: In fact I might have voted for him last election if the dems had the sense to nominate him.

[Tribesman]

nothing in the armistice prevents joint training exercises from happening.
As long as they are conducted within the terms as set down by the document covering troop movements .

Since when is a cease fire document not a cease fire document.

When it is a preliminary document that has been superceded by a formal agreement it no longer has any relevance except as a historical interest.

Since the ceasefire was announced on the 28th of February, the ceasefire is a valid condition
No that announcment became invalid on the 2nd and 3rd which in turn became invalid the next month .

Again the United States can indeed re-initated hostilites with Iraq for the violation of the ceasefire treaty or United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 by the simple reasoning that it was a belligerent party in the conflict - as Article 36 of the Hague Conventions clearly state.
No it cannot ...in accordance with the terms of the armistice....the United states signed as a soverign nation under the mandated authority of the UN so in accordance with the terms of the armistice it must act under the mandated authority , it hasn't , it tried but it failed .
Or are you trying to say that the US doesn't sign under the mandate of the UN and didn't give the UN the authority that it had given it .
Hey as a soverieng nation you can do whatever you want , but you cannot claim the authority provided by a document unless you act in accordance with the terms of the document , which means acting under the UN , which America is not .

Not at all - the second one is the redundant article - the first one is the primary article, which is what Resolution 687 is based upon.

Red , that is like saying the first draft of the US Constitution is the real Constitution and the actual agreed constitution and all its appended amendments are redundant as the first draft is the primary article .:san_laugh:

[Redleg]

nothing in the armistice prevents joint training exercises from happening.
As long as they are conducted within the terms as set down by the document covering troop movements .

You asked the question was answered - we can if we so desire...




Since when is a cease fire document not a cease fire document.

When it is a preliminary document that has been superceded by a formal agreement it no longer has any relevance except as a historical interest.


A ceasefire is a standing agreement until its broken or a peace treaty is signed,,,



Since the ceasefire was announced on the 28th of February, the ceasefire is a valid condition
No that announcment became invalid on the 2nd and 3rd which in turn became invalid the next month .


Not at all - it was valid on the 28th of February - except for when my unit almost violated it. It remained valid until the Division left Iraq - the ceasefire argreements only formalized it.



Again the United States can indeed re-initated hostilites with Iraq for the violation of the ceasefire treaty or United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 by the simple reasoning that it was a belligerent party in the conflict - as Article 36 of the Hague Conventions clearly state.
No it cannot ...in accordance with the terms of the armistice....the United states signed as a soverign nation under the mandated authority of the UN so in accordance with the terms of the armistice it must act under the mandated authority , it hasn't , it tried but it failed .

Within the aspice of the Hague Treaty - it does not matter if the nation is part of an alliance or not - it clearly states Belligerent Party.



Or are you trying to say that the US doesn't sign under the mandate of the UN and didn't give the UN the authority that it had given it.

The United Nations does not give the United States the authority to go to war - only the United States congress can do that. Congress cheated by authorizing the use of force..



Hey as a soverieng nation you can do whatever you want , but you cannot claim the authority provided by a document unless you act in accordance with the terms of the document , which means acting under the UN , which America is not .

Sure we can - the fact that we fought in the gulf gives us that ability.



Not at all - the second one is the redundant article - the first one is the primary article, which is what Resolution 687 is based upon.

Red , that is like saying the first draft of the US Constitution is the real Constitution and the actual agreed constitution and all its appended amendments are redundant as the first draft is the primary article .:san_laugh:

Sure that is exactly what the word means - redundant is all others that reinforce the initial. The laugh is on you with the use of the word redundant - superceded or antiquated is the correrct term for what your attempting to prove.

[Tribesman]

You asked the question was answered - we can if we so desire...
Yes within the terms set out by the treaty . Unless you wish to violate the treaty .
A ceasefire is a standing agreement until its broken or a peace treaty is signed,,,

Which one ? a preliminary one no longer stands once a formal one is complete .
A formal one was completed wasn't it .

it does not matter if the nation is part of an alliance or not - it clearly states Belligerent Party.

And it clearly states "in accordance with the terms" Now show me where the US signed as a soveriegn nation in its own right and not under the mandated authority ...it didn't did it ....so acting outside of that authority is not in accordance with the terms is it .

The laugh is on you with the use of the word redundant
Soooooo ....you come down to silly word games again red , so do tell how many definitions does redundant have ??????

[Redleg]

You asked the question was answered - we can if we so desire...
Yes within the terms set out by the treaty . Unless you wish to violate the treaty .

The fifty thousand soldier question would not be violating the treaty, since the levels of troops in Korea are far below those of the armistice states. Again the United States can do exactly what it states.



A ceasefire is a standing agreement until its broken or a peace treaty is signed,,,

Which one ? a preliminary one no longer stands once a formal one is complete .
A formal one was completed wasn't it .



A cease fire is a cease fire - as simple as that.



it does not matter if the nation is part of an alliance or not - it clearly states Belligerent Party.

And it clearly states "in accordance with the terms" Now show me where the US signed as a soveriegn nation in its own right and not under the mandated authority ...it didn't did it ....so acting outside of that authority is not in accordance with the terms is it .

What authority - the United Nations does not have the authority to wage war - only soveriegn nations do. That is what the Hague Conventions address.



The laugh is on you with the use of the word redundant
Soooooo ....you come down to silly word games again red , so do tell how many definitions does redundant have ??????

Silly word games is all you have been playing since this discussion has started - so don't get upset when one is done back.

It really doesn't matter what you think on the issue .

The international community via the United Nations has never been able to enforce a single resolution without the will of at least 3 nations, one of those being the United States. The other two are Russia and China, both who play the same politicial games as the United States as it relates to the United Nations. However like I said before - I don't see you complaining about Bosnia, oe Kosovo. Here are circumstance where the United States ignored the so called authority of the United Nations and did what it believed to be correct. Those two events shows exactly what authority an United Nations Resolution has. Absolutely none if the nations involved do not want it.

[Tribesman]

A cease fire is a cease fire - as simple as that.

A redundant (oh no wrong word....oh , but that is the correct word) Ceasefire is redundant , superfluous , irrlevant , invalid , void , worthless once it is replaced by a formal ceasefire that supercedes it .

The fifty thousand soldier question would not be violating the treaty, since the levels of troops in Korea are far below those of the armistice states.
The introduction of 50,000 troops overnight , or over a period of less than one month would be a violation of the treaty .
It is in there between the bit where the US general is not described as a commander of UN forces and the bit where he has not signed as a UN representative:san_laugh:

so don't get upset when one is done back.

Well Red I would normally expect you to actually know the meaning of a word before you try and claim its incorrectness , are you slacking a little:san_wink:

sploiler eh
Oh and BTW I was complaining about Kosovo since the introduction of martial law which was a hell of a lot earlier than any of that wider conflict . Soooo your point there is ?????

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tribe'

Gawain's recurrent point about treaties boils down to this:

Absent a "third party" powerful enough to enforce compliance, treaties are only valid up to the extent that the parties to such a treaty (agreement, cease-fire etc.) are willing to honor them.

The government of a Western nation, with their tradition of the rule of law, does run the risk of losing international support and respect, or sometimes even domestic support, for failing to live up to a treaty -- and this can be a point of considerable importance -- but there is usually no independent sanction to curtail their action one way or the other. I do not know enough about the conditions that obtain for an African, Middle Eastern or Asiatic government to evaluate this issue in those contexts.

To some extent, the UN was designed to be a fulcrum for the leverage of world opinion to be brought to bear in such cases, but it has generated only mixed results in this role thus far.

[Tribesman]

Seamus , I understand Gawains point well enough , but the fact is that the Administration does not reject the treaty , it can but it didn't , it has tried to justify itself by citing the treaty .
That it cannot do , it must either reject it or work within its terms .
The reason that it will not reject it is because if it does it sets the precedence that Americas signature on a treaty is worthless , the American government spends bilions on treaties and trying to get other people to agree to them .
What nation will sign anything with America if they believe that what they are signing is worthless .
Now there is historical precedence of countries issuing worthless treaties , or ignoring International bodies because they had the military might to do so . And that didn't work out very well did it .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Seamus , I understand Gawains point well enough , but the fact is that the Administration does not reject the treaty , it can but it didn't , it has tried to justify itself by citing the treaty .
That it cannot do , it must either reject it or work within its terms .


You just dont get it do you. We can obey or ignore any part of any treaty we like. We dont have to renounce it. Why hasnt the UN or anyone else brought us up on charges? Were not trying to use the UN as the main justification for the war but as a secondary reason. The fact that we want to do is all thats need here. UN approval once more is merely a nice thing to have. When the UN approved that didnt give them any authority over any of the troops involved in that war or the nations that were involved.. Their only authority lies in your head. If we violated all these treaties why dont the other signatorys throw us out or bring charges against us. There is no power on the face of gods green earth that can tell the US what to do as of today other than the Congress and government of the United States of America. Thats whats meant by a Soverign nation.

[Redleg]

A cease fire is a cease fire - as simple as that.

A redundant (oh no wrong word....oh , but that is the correct word) Ceasefire is redundant , superfluous , irrlevant , invalid , void , worthless once it is replaced by a formal ceasefire that supercedes it .

So you do agree that a ceasefire is a ceasefire, The United Nations does not enforce ceasefires - only the nations involved can settle the ceasefire.




The fifty thousand soldier question would not be violating the treaty, since the levels of troops in Korea are far below those of the armistice states.
The introduction of 50,000 troops overnight , or over a period of less than one month would be a violation of the treaty .
It is in there between the bit where the US general is not described as a commander of UN forces and the bit where he has not signed as a UN representative:san_laugh:

Actually it would not be - again UFL and Team Spirit are exambles of that.



so don't get upset when one is done back.

Well Red I would normally expect you to actually know the meaning of a word before you try and claim its incorrectness , are you slacking a little:san_wink:


Actaully it is you who need to look up the word, reduntant implies something else besides a document superceding a previous document. So I am well aware of what reduntant means since most fire direction systems use a reduntant system for backup computations. Most safety systems have a reduntant system to provide additional protection.



sploiler eh
Oh and BTW I was complaining about Kosovo since the introduction of martial law which was a hell of a lot earlier than any of that wider conflict . Soooo your point there is ?????

Provide proof if you can - LOL


The point is that you avoided the comparision - I see you are still avoiding Bosnia. :san_shocked: Both are instances where the United States superceded the authority of the United Nations to do what it wanted to do. Shows plently of presedence now doesn't. Korea also shows where the United States has removed the authority of the United Nations and has taken over the mission completely.

Now what to you have verus the reality of the situation - only opinion - which is about as valid as my own. However continue with your petty namecalling and attempts at insulting others because they do not agree with your opinion.

The reality is that the United Nations failed to enforce its own resolutions, the reality is that the United States decided to enforce the ceasefire conditions that were orginally established and agreed upon. Did the United States do this with the best motives in place for the world - or course not it did it with the motives and interests of the United States first and foremost.


The United Nations failed in its responsiblities and its accountablity for the little authority it has - and has marginalized itself by its own inaction.

Was the Bush Adminstration seemed a little eager for a shooting war with Iraq, Yes indeed - but the violations of the ceasefire existed from the get-go and the United Nations as a body failed to uphold its responsibilities. With authority comes responsibility and accountablity. The United Nations fails on all counts in maintaining those aspects.

It has shown that in Bosnia
It has shown that in Kosovo
It has shown that in Rawanda
It has shown that inability in a host of countries and failures.

Now continue with your poor attempts at saying I am tilting at windmills - since that is really all you do in posting is to attempt to belittle those who disagree with you. It smacks of nothing other then being a bully and a misrable human being. You have done this consently in every post in this thread - and it has been ignored for the most part - but it seems that you can not move past belittling those who disagree with you. Have a nice life Tribesman - I know I have.

[Tribesman]

Actually it would not be - again UFL and Team Spirit are exambles of that.

Yes Red , some mighty big exersises , it is so much easier now to do it with computer simulations and a few thousand actual troops isn't it . So pray tell how many of the troops in these big exercises came from outside of Korea .
So you do agree that a ceasefire is a ceasefire,
A ceasefire is a ceasefire , only until it is replaced by another ceasefire or peace treaty , upon which it becomes redundant , a piece of history , nothing more , unless of course the later ceasefire contains terms that do not invalidate it , so where are those terms ? They are absent .

Actaully it is you who need to look up the word
Would you like to add a dictionary to your christmas list , though you could save some money by using one of the many free online ones .
It isn't very wise to calll someone foolish over the use of a word , if you do not know the uses of that word yourself , it may even make you look foolish .

Were not trying to use the UN as the main justification for the war but as a secondary reason.
Really Gawain , and what was this main reason ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Really Gawain , and what was this main reason ?


We wanted to and thats all there is to it. You dont like it either lump it or do something about it. We are beholding to no one but ourselves. Why is this so hard for you to understand? There is no legal body in the world that can tell us what to do but our own government. There is no organization with the power or authority to declare aything we do illegal and make it stick. Once more the only power the UN has is in your head. You can coplain and make blustery statement like we are doing this and that illegal thing but theres no authority to back up your claims. Im sure Axis powers would decalre a lot of what we did in WW2 as illegal. Its only ilegal if you lose. When the UN can enforce some kind of law or policy upon the US then they wiil have somekind of authority over us and not until then. Treaties can be ignored or revoked by congress at anytime. If we choose to ignore part or all of them thats our bussiness. We dont have to withdraw from them because someone named Tribesman says so. Again if were in such violation why dont the rest of you throw us out. Now that would be a laugh. The UN without the US.

[Tribesman]

We wanted to and thats all there is to it. You dont like it either lump it or do something about it.
So there we have it in a nutshell , so Iran can build nukes because it can as no one can do anything about it , and N.Korea can do whatever the hell it likes .
Might is right .:san_shocked:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So there we have it in a nutshell , so Iran can build nukes because it can as no one can do anything about it , and N.Korea can do whatever the hell it likes .
'Its about time you started coming to your senses. I never said no one can do anything about. I said


You dont like it either lump it or do something about it.

N Korea and Iraq were doing nothing "illegal" They just arent dong what we want.If you think the US is doing something illegal then do something about it or go away.


Might is right

When all is said and done this is so. Might makes authority, The UN has neither might nor authority unless we say so.

[Tribesman]

.If you think the US is doing something illegal then do something about it or go away.


Yoy repeatedly try and justify the governments actions , but you cannot so your position boils down to ....errr..we got bigger guns .
:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
I ain't going anywhere Gawain , I will continue to criticise the US government or that of any other country , and you cannot do anything about it can you , you just have to either reply or ignore , so whats it gonna be ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yoy repeatedly try and justify the governments actions , but you cannot so your position boils down to ....errr..we got bigger guns .


Look if we are indeed doing something illegal and against the UN charter and they have authority over us how is it we arent being brough up on some sort of charges. It seems that either the UN has no such authority or they dont agree with you.


I ain't going anywhere Gawain , I will continue to criticise the US government or that of any other country , and you cannot do anything about it can you , you just have to either reply or ignore , so whats it gonna be ?

Yup and what you do is not illegal and I have no more authority over you than the UN has over the US.

[Xiahou]

Sorry to be on topic but...

Lieberman isn't the only Democrat to say progress is being made in Iraq- many House Democrats are too- like Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall...

Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., a member of the House Armed Services Committee who just returned from a visit to Iraq, said he was encouraged by what he saw there.

"There's clearly progress being made," said Marshall, a former Army Ranger and a Vietnam veteran. "We can expect some setbacks. That's only natural. The progress that's most encouraging is that Iraqi security forces are now taking over responsibility for policing large areas of their country. (During the next year) I think we'll see substantial numbers of U.S. troops drawing down, really."

However, he warned that American efforts in Iraq still could fail if support for the war declined in the United States.link (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13362228.htm)

I'm pretty sure he's not Jewish, btw- so you'll have to think of another way to discredit him. :wink:

[Tribesman]

so you'll have to think of another way to discredit him.
Well , he is a member of the democratic party , is that enough to destroy his credibility :san_wink: